1921-05-07

PRIVATE BILLS FROM THE SENATE-FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Lily Apple-ton.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Harry Hirshenbain.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Percy Christopher Paul.-Mr. Harrison.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of John Graham.-Mr. Smith.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: I think it is the intention of the Government to have the Budget presented on Monday. Is it the intention of the Government to lay on the table of the House any report of the committee of the Cabinet which held an inquiry into questions of the tariff during last year? In the speech from the Throne, it is mentioned that the conclusions of that investigation will be presented in due course.. Shall we have them in a form in which the House can consider them?


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: I will make inquiry of the Minister of Finance and let the hon. member know a little later in the day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the Budget speech is brought down?


John Dowsley Reid: A little later in the day.



INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals) for Right Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), moved the third reading of Bill No. 73, to authorize the ratification and carrying into effect of the Protocol of December 16, 1920, accepting the statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice of December 13, 1920.
194J
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Immigration and Colonization-salaries and contingencies, $223,257.50.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the
minister kindly explain the increase of $48,205?


Mr. CALDER:: There is an apparent
increase in the staff of the department. It will be noted in the statement of details that the number of officials employed last year was 102, whereas the Estimates this year show 126. As a matter of fact, however, there has not been any addition to the departmental staff. During the year there has been a process of readjustment. Heretofore, we have had on the regular staff at Ottawa employees who were paid out of general votes, and I am of opinion that that practice should cease. All that has been done in this case is that a number of officials who being on the staff, were paid out of general votes of the department, have been placed on the Civil Service List. I think that is the better practice. Therefore, there is no increase in the number of the staff, and any other increase there is as regards the staff is due to increases of salaries arranged for by the classification.


Mr. JACOBS:: I do not know whether
I am in order or not; but with the approval of the committee, I should like to ask if the minister would tell us something about a new Order in Council passed by the department, I think, on April 30.


James Alexander Calder: I did not know to what
Order in Council the hon. gentleman was referring-


Samuel William Jacobs: There were so many.


James Alexander Calder: Not so very many; there are a goodly number necessary in connection with the administration of the work of the department. If I understand what the hon. gentleman has in mind, it was an Order in Council issued recently providing for the payment of a small fee where permits are granted to people who are allowed to enter Canada temporarily. In the case of persons affected mentally, that is, insane persons or persons approaching insanity, a fee of $25 has been fixed for the granting of temporary admission of those persons to Canada. In the case of others, I think the fee is $5. As the committee

can readily understand, we have a great deal of work and a good deal of expense in connection with those cases. They must be followed up, and officials must be employed to do that work. In addition there are other incidental expenses; and it is thought that when permits are granted by the department to people to enter Canada temporarily and where we have that additional work and expense cast upon us, those who are granted that privilege should be charged a fee.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it the policy of the department to make intending immigrants pay for the upkeep of the department? Is not this incidental to the work of the department?


James Alexander Calder: These are not immigrants who are to remain in Canada permanently. They are simply granted permission to enter Canada for a short time, say for a period of six months, and in some cases a year. There is a good deal of expense in connection with granting these people this privilege, and I think they should contribute something towards the expenses entailed.
As regards the general question raised, I am not so sure but that the time has come when we would be justified in charging a small fee to people who enter Canada. The expenditure in connection with the department is very large, and it may be that, within a measurable distance, the policy should be adopted of requiring those who enter Canada to pay a small fee which would help defray a portion of the expenditure. The United States charges a head tax of $8, if I am not mistaken. I have not the figures before me but their expenditure on immigration runs into millions of dollars, and it is all paid out of the head taxes collected, and there is a surplus. I do not say that the time has arrived when we should do that in Canada, but I do say that the subject is worthy of consideration. The matter has been under consideration already, but no decision has been arrived at, and consequently nothing will be done in that direction this year. I think, however, that the matter might very well be considered before another session, and a conclusion arrived at.


Samuel William Jacobs: Under the Laurier Administration we paid a little in order to induce immigrants to come to this country. We are evidently reversing that policy now. This small tax which the minister proposes to impose is an inducement, I suppose, for people to come to this country.


Mr. KNOX:: What revenue is received annually, or has been received altogether, from the tax on Chinese immigrants?


The CHAIRMAN:: I must point out that these questions are not strictly in order upon the present item. The present item concerns only the salaries of the Civil Government employees here in Ottawa. If hon. gentlemen would only wait till we reach Items Nos. 52, 53, and following, which will be taken up immediately, all these questions would then be strictly in order, and, as an acting chairman once said, it would make the task of the Chairman much easier.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: Am I to understand that the Chairman, whose wisdom I never doubt, is calling the minister to order for obstructing his own Estimates?


James Alexander Calder: I might say in reply to my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that I was asked a question from the other side of the House, which I politely endeavoured to reply to.


Michael Clark: From what I gathered, the subject under discussion was of considerable importance, and the minister made a very provocative speech in reply. He may consider himself lucky if the Chairman saves him from a long debate.


Mr. STEVENS:: Is the Deputy Minister of the Department of the Interior the Deputy Minister also of the Immigration Department?


James Alexander Calder: Yes, Mr. Cory is still acting as Deputy Minister of Immigration.


Samuel William Jacobs: A couple of years ago an additional $1,000 was placed in the Estimates for Mr. Cory, on account of the work he was doing for the Department of Immigration exclusive of his duties as Deputy Minister of the Interior Department. Why has that been dropped?


James Alexander Calder: The reason was that
some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House took very strenuous objection to that procedure being followed.


Samuel William Jacobs: Only one.


James Alexander Calder: As a matter of fact, the Immigration Department was part of the Interior Department for a great many years, until it was thought advisable to separate them. I doubt if Mr. Cory has very much more work to do now in con-

nection with the Immigration Department than he had when the two departments were amalgamated.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Is not Mr. Scott the
Deputy Minister of the Department of Immigration?


James Alexander Calder: No, he was the superintendent.


Mr. CAHILL:: In view of the statement of the minister a few days ago, in which he intimated that the principal part of his work was to keep immigrants out of Canada rather than to encourage them to come in, how does he account for the increase of $45,000 in this item?


Mr. McMASTER:: On account of the
harder work he has keeping them out.


James Alexander Calder: In the first place, I did
not say that the chief work of the department was to keep immigrants out. In the second place, as I have already explained, there is no increase in the staff. We are simply carrying them here instead of under the general vote.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is evidently a
mistake in the Estimates, for I read on page 83, "Department of Immigration and Colonization, deputy minister, $6,000," and then on page 80, "Department of the Interior, deputy minister, $6,000." Are we voting the amount twice?


James Alexander Calder: That vote in the immigration has been carried during the last two years, but the position has not been filled. Mr. Cory is simply acting as Deputy Minister of Immigration, and as such he does not receive any salary. If the appointment were made at any time, the person appointed would get this $6,000.


Mr. DECHENE:: How is it that the
Chief Inspector of Immigration is receiving an increase of $1,335? His salary last year was $2,625, and this year it is $3,960. That is a large increase in one year. The big fellows in this department seem to be getting all the increases.


James Alexander Calder: The hon. gentleman is
probably aware that the salaries of all the officials in the service have been carefully reviewed by the Civil Service Commission during the past year, and as a result of their study of the whole subject they have made certain recommendations to the Government as to what the salaries should be for the different positions. The Chief Inspector of Immigration has very considerable duties to perform, and very responsible duties too.


Samuel William Jacobs: Who is he?


James Alexander Calder: Mr. Percy Reid. I
would judge that the Civil Service Commission, after a study of his work in comparison with that of the other chief officials, came to the conclusion that he had not been adequately paid in the past, and consequently recommended this increase.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Does the same reason
account for the increase of $1,000 in the salary of the secretary of the department, and for the increase of $635 in the salary of the secretary-clerk, and for the increase of $1,060 in the salary of the Division Commissioner of Immigration? These are substantial increases among four or five employees drawing the biggest salaries. The smaller-salaried men do not seem to be receiving much of an increase at all. In my opinion, the higher officers in the department were pretty well paid before the reclassification, and they were of course able to put their case before the Board of Hearing, as the junior officials could not, with the result that they succeeded in many cases in obtaining increases while the less fortunate ones were left in the hole, if I may say so. That is hardly fair, and I think that the Government, if they saw fit to increase the salaries of high officials, should have saved something for those lower down.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not know much about the work of the Chief Inspector of Immigration, but I do know something about that of the secretary of the department, and any salary that we pay him is nothing compared to the work he is doing. I would advocate reversing matters, and would suggest that the secretary receive the salary which the minister himself receives and that the minister be given the secretary's salary, because most .of the work of the department is done by the secretary. This gentleman performs his work well, and shows tact, judgment and discretion; and altogether I am surprised that up to the present he has remained in a position for which he draws a paltry $2,900. He should have resigned long ago and obtained a position with a salary commensurate with the kind of work he does.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: A new position has been created, that of supervisor of women's division of immigration, at a salary of $2,700. Is this officer a man or a woman?


James Alexander Calder: A lady.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Is she located in Canada, England, or where?


James Alexander Calder: In Canada.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: What is her name?


James Alexander Calder: Mrs. Robson. She has been occupying the position temporarily for some time, having been in the service now for about a year or a year and a-half. She does excellent work.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Is she only a temporary employee?


James Alexander Calder: Yes. About three
months ago the Civil Service Commission advertised to have the position filled and a dozen or more applications were sent in. They were all carefully considered and the conclusion was reached that the position should again be advertised as none of those who had applied were considered as having the qualifications necessary for the work.


Mr. MURPHY:: On whose advice was the position re-advertised?


James Alexander Calder: During the past year there has been established an organization known as the Canadian Council of Women's Immigration, which deals particularly with the immigration of women. Some eight, ten or twelve national organizations are represented on that council, and at their last meeting, held about two or three weeks ago, the Civil Service Commission made representations to them regarding the difficulties which had been encountered in having this particular position filled. On the request of the commission that council appointed, I think, three of its members to go over and consider with the commission all the applications that had been made, and finally, as a result of their representations to the commission, it was decided to advertise the position again.


Charles Murphy: Is that council a body constituted by Government?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand that this lady deals exclusively with women immigrants ?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: She is at the head of that particular department?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: How many applications were received in all by the minister?


James Alexander Calder: I did not receive any; they went to the commission.


Frank S. Cahill: Well, how many were there?


James Alexander Calder: About a dozen.


Frank S. Cahill: And none qualified?


James Alexander Calder: That was the conclusion come to.


Frank S. Cahill: By the Civil Service
Commission or the department?


James Alexander Calder: By the commission.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Who is the gentleman who is classified as secretary to the executive?


James Alexander Calder: Miss Johnston; she is secretary to Mr. Scott, who was Superintendent of Immigration and is now assistant deputy minister.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Miss Johnston is secretary to the assistant deputy minister?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Has the deputy minister himself also a secretary?


James Alexander Calder: He uses his own organization in the Interior Department; he has no secretary provided for in these Estimates. The deputy minister is Deputy Minister of the Department of Interior as well, and, of course, he has his staff there.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I see there are four
assistants to the secretary. Do they all assist the secretary of the department, or Miss Johnston?


James Alexander Calder: They are assistants to
the secretary of the department. As the hon. gentleman can readily understand, the secretary carries on, an the main, the correspondence of the department, and these are simply his assistants in directing and carrying on that large volume of correspondence.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Scott, I understand,
is assistant deputy minister?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: And his salary has been
increased some $800 during the year?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: Was there not some question of his resigning? I understood his health demanded his resignation?


James Alexander Calder: I would scarcely say
that. Mr. Scott has been in the service

a long time and has done very valuable work in the past. While his health to-day is not what it was some years ago, still he has hardly reached that stage where he should resign. He is still a very capable and useful worker.


Samuel William Jacobs: Could he retire on an
allowance?


James Alexander Calder: Yes, he could be retired under the Retirement Act.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am glad to hear that
his health is better.


Mr. COPP:: Under "Health contingencies," there is an item of $5,000 for clerical assistance. I judge from the details of the vote that the clerical staff is pretty well provided for apart from this $5,000, and perhaps the minister will say what this is for.


James Alexander Calder: This is a vote that is
usually taken in every department, because there may be periods in the course of the year when it might be necessary to procure help of a purely temporary character. There are times when the business of the department is more or less rushed, and it is necessary to have a vote of this kind. The custom prevails throughout the entire service, and it is merely to take care of any temporary help that is needed.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There are twenty-four
clerks and other officials more this year than last year. The number this year is 126 as compared with 102 a year ago.


James Alexander Calder: The hon. member was
not in the House when L explained that. There is really no increase in the number. It is simply a transfer of members of the staff who were carried on the general vote of the department. They are now transferred to the civil government list, which should have been done long ago. Where officials are here on the staff at Ottawa they should not [DOT] be carried on a general vote but should be put on the Civil Service list, where they rightly belong; and we propose now to carry on the civil list persons who previously were carried on the general vote. As I have said, there is really no increase.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Has any part of the $5,000
voted last year been expended?


James Alexander Calder: We had eight temporaries last year who were employed at salaries totalling $5,980. I do not know whether they were carried throughout the entire year, but that was the total of the salaries that would be paid them.


Samuel William Jacobs: Who is the Commissioner of United States Immigration, and where is he located?


James Alexander Calder: Mr. W. J. White has
been commissioner for a good many years. He makes his headquarters at Ottawa.


Samuel William Jacobs: What are his duties?


James Alexander Calder: He has general supervision of our work in the United States. He overlooks and directs all the work of the various agencies there.


Samuel William Jacobs: Looks over!


James Alexander Calder: He overlooks their work.
Mr . JACOBS:	He does not overlook
much as far as I can see.


James Alexander Calder: Well, it all depends on what you mean by " overlook." His work is carried on entirely in the United States in supervision of our agencies there.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that at Ellis Island?


James Alexander Calder: No.


Samuel William Jacobs: We maintain an office at Ellis Island do we not?


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind the committee that consideration of any matter connected with Ellis Island would come up under item 52 where there is a vote of $80,000 for immigration in the United States. I hope the committee will allow progress to be made with the large item for salaries in the Inside Service, and the matter of Ellis island will then be in order under item 52.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am asking for information concerning the commissioner of United States immigration, and wish information about it.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am very sorry, but anything pertaining to the work of the Department of Immigration in the United States and at Ellis Island does not properly come up under the vote for civil government.


Samuel William Jacobs: I beg your pardon Mr. Chairman, you will find on page 83, as the third item-" Commissioner of United States Immigration, $4,500," which is an increase of $500 as compared with last year.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member is quite at liberty to ask anything concerning the duties of that official here at Ottawa, but not to discuss the matter of the office at Ellis Island.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would like to ask my hon. triend also in regard to the item of $28,000 for travelling expenses and sundries under the heading of " Contingencies." How much of that was expended last year, and what part was for sundries? What is included under the word "sundries?"


James Alexander Calder: Take the whole vote for contingencies of $40,000, we over-expended last year some $4,000. That included provision for these temporary clerks. In addition that item covers all the printing-forms, envelopes, record books, letterheads and everything of that kind for the department.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That would be under printing and stationery?


James Alexander Calder: Yes. The travelling expenses cover the travelling expenses of the chief officers of the department.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand that.


James Alexander Calder: My hon. friend will see the list of officers. Those Officers have a good deal of travelling to do. Take for example the chief inspector of immigration-take the officer in charge of juvenile immigration, and other of our chief officers-they travel a great deal throughout the country. I have not the details here of the expenditures for travelling expenses last year; I simply have the total amount expended under the head of contingencies.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend misunderstood me. I did not ask particularly about the travelling expenses, although they are under the heading of sundries-I asked particularly, what was under that heading- what would be included in sundries that is not provided for in the other votes?


James Alexander Calder: I think that is intended to cover items like telegrams and telephone messages, and so on, expenditures incurred directly by the department itself.


Arthur Bliss Copp: You have not those particulars separate from the travelling expenses?


James Alexander Calder: I have not.


Samuel William Jacobs: I notice we are providing for the salary of " Supervisor of Personnel." Who is that official and why should this department particularly have a supervisor of personnel?


James Alexander Calder: Mr. Featherstone is acting in that capacity; he is an old officer in the department and has been there a
[The Chairman.]
great many years. I understand they have an officer doing similar duties in connection with nearly all the departments. Mr. Featherstone has work outside of this. In a general way he looks after all appointments to the service, carries on all the work that is necessary to be carried on with the Civil Service Commission-at least a great deal of that work-and generally has charge of the details connected with the personnel of the staff. That does not occupy all his time. As members are aware he assists me a good deal here while the House is in session, in connection wit! my own work in the House and also ir connection with departmental matters.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: What are the duties of this Division Immigration Inspector grade 2?


James Alexander Calder: I think the vote will
show it. We have three officers of that class. Canada is divided into three immigration districts, the Eastern District, the Western District-that is the prairie district-and the Mountain District, with three commissioners in charge. Under each of these commissioners there is a division inspector. That inspector has the supervision of the work of all the boundary inspectors under the jurisdiction of each of these commissioners. Mr. Willans is the gentleman who occupies that position in Eastern Canada, and it is his duty to oversee the work of the boundary inspectors along the borders in Eastern Canada and see that everything is running properly.
Mr. CAHILL.: Does the Supervisor of Personnel draw a salary for performing the duties of that office and another salary for doing some other work?


James Alexander Calder: No.


Charles Murphy: Referring again to an item which the hon. gentleman has partially explained, I would like some further explanation with regard to it. That is the "Supervisor of Women's Division Immigration" at a salary of $2,700. I observe that this is a new vote, therefore I take it this is the creation of a new position. Is that correct?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Charles Murphy: The hon. gentleman has explained that the duties pertaining to this office have been discharged temporarily by a lady who has been in all respects satisfactory. That also is correct?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Charles Murphy: May I inquire why her services are not going to be continued?


James Alexander Calder: Mrs. Robson has made up her mind that she does not wish to continue in the service, and she remains on temporarily until such time as an appointment is made. Let me say this to the committee, and say it very frankly,.-that in my view, the handling of the problem relating to the immigration of women is one of the most difficult problems that the department has to deal with, and it is most essential that we should get a woman who is thoroughly competent and thoroughly trained, with the necessary tact and judgment to handle that work. I would be the last man who would want to see any person appointed who did not have such qualifications, because there is no position in our service where more trouble can be caused by not having the right kind of person in the position, and I have been most anxious that an appointment of right class should be made. Mrs. Robson has made up her mind that she will not continue in the service, and it is expected that she will leave very shortly, and I am very anxious that we should get, as her successor, some person who can do the work and carry it on in the way in which it should be carried on. We must have such a person, otherwise we are going to have a great deal of trouble.


Charles Murphy: Then I understand my hon. friend to say further that the position had been advertised as being a new one, and applications had been invited for it; that applications were sent in, a dozen or more; and that after these had been inquired into the decision was reached that none of the applicants came up to the requirements, and it was decided to re-adver-tise the position. Is that correct?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Charles Murphy: I understood my hon.
friend to say further, that the applications sent in were inquired into jointly by the Civil Service Commission and the representatives of a council of women appointed in some way by the Government. I would like to know who compose this council, on what basis they are appointed, and by what authority they have a voice in making this Government appointment.


James Alexander Calder: In the first place, the appointment was by Order in Council under the Immigration Act.


Charles Murphy: That is, the first appointment?


James Alexander Calder: The body was created under the provisions of the Immigration Act.


Charles Murphy: Is the hon. gentleman now speaking of the Council of Women?


James Alexander Calder: Yes. The organizations represented on that council are: Interprovincial Farm Women-a nation-wide organization-by Mrs. John McNaughton, of Harris, Saskatchewan; the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada, by Mrs. J. S. Robson, of Winnipeg; the Young-Women's Christian Association, by Lady Falconer, of Toronto; the National Council of Women, by Mrs. Vincent Massey, of Toronto; the Women's Christian Temperance Union, by Mrs. Gordon Wright, of London; the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, by Mrs. W. D. Spence, of Calgary; the National Committee on Mental Hygiene, by Mrs. Colin Russel, of Montreal; the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, by Mr. Tom Moore; the Great War Veterans Association, by Mr. Mac-Neil, Secretary; the Catholic Women's League of Canada, by Lady Pope, of Ottawa; the Women's Missionary Society of the Methodist Church of Canada, by Mrs. H. A. La veil, of Kingston; the Women's Missionary Society of the Presbyterian Church in Canada by Mrs. J. N. West, of Toronto; the Women's Auxiliary to the Missionary Society of the Church of England, by Miss Bogert, Ottawa, and the Social Service Council of Canada, by Dr. J. G. Shearer, Toronto. The Council is composed of persons whose names I have mentioned. They have had several meetings. The main object of the Council has been to consider the problem of women immigration and to make certain recommendations to the Government from time to time as to the best method of carrying on our work, and I can say quite frankly that their recommendations have been very helpful to us. As a matter of fact, we have made a number of changes in the handling of women immigration, which I think, have resulted in great good to these people. For example, these various organizations have women officers at the ports in addition to our own, and when the immigrants land they are very much better looked after than in the old days, being provided with all sorts of comforts and assisted in every way. In fact, these organizations handle, very efficiently, all the problems connected with women immigration, and when it becomes known overseas how carefully the work is done, it will tend to increase our immigration.


Charles Murphy: Has the hon. gentleman got the date of the Order in Council to which he referred?


James Alexander Calder: I have not a copy here. It must have been made about two years ago.


Charles Murphy: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to bring it down?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Charles Murphy: Who defines the duties for each of these positions which are set forth in the advertisements of the Civil Service Commission inviting applications?


James Alexander Calder: The same practice prevails there as in all the departments. The department in the first place suggests to the commission what the duties should be If any objection is taken by the commission, then I presume there would be a conference betweep the departmental officials and the commission, and as a result the duties would be finally fixed.	[DOT]


Charles Murphy: I understand that the
general rule is as the hon. gentleman states it, but I should like to know who defines the duties of this particular position. Is it the hon. gentleman, or his department, or the Civil Service Commission, or this Council of Women?


James Alexander Calder: That would be done by
the deputy head of the department in consultation with his chief officer.


Charles Murphy: Does the hon. gentleman know that that has actually been done?


James Alexander Calder: I would think so.


Charles Murphy: Can the hon. gentleman say so definitely?


James Alexander Calder: I have no knowledge to
the contrary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the Council of
Women hold regular sessions?


James Alexander Calder: I think their meetings
have been confined to one annually.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are they paid to attend such sessions?


James Alexander Calder: If I mistake not, we
paid their travelling expenses the first time they met; since then, they have paid their own travelling expenses.


Charles Murphy: Have advertisements
been published inviting new applications for the position?	.


James Alexander Calder: That I cannot say.


Charles Murphy: Does the hon. gentleman know when such applications will be invited?


James Alexander Calder: That I cannot say.


Charles Murphy: Could the hon. gentleman state who were applicants for the position, and what their respective standings were?


James Alexander Calder: I do not know the name
of one of them. I never had the list before me, and I never made inquiries. I have persistently kept away from the Civil Service Commission and their work, and I propose to continue, to do so. I never heard the name of a single applicant for that position, and I do not want to.


Charles Murphy: Surely my hon. friend
would not take the attitude that for a position comprising part of the machinery of his department he is going to allow one or two outside bodies to define the duties of that position, and generally to disregard him in the appointment?


James Alexander Calder: That is our law.


Charles Murphy: No, that is not the law, I beg my hon. friend's pardon. Now, in connection with another department-in regard to which my hon. friend could get information from one of his colleagues- an incident happened, something similar to the one we are discussing, and my fear is that instead of having regard for the duties attaching to this position, and for the good that may be done by the person occupying it, there is danger that certain qualifications may be drafted which, like a suit of clothes or a hat or a pair of boots, will fit only one particular person, so that nobody else, no matter how much better qualified, may obtain the position. Hence my curiosity.


James Alexander Calder: That did not occur here, surely.


Charles Murphy: I hope not. I am
curious to know why nobody was appointed out of these dozen applicants and why the position is to be re-advertised. The fact that my hon. friend says he does not know anything about the matter merely increases my suspicion that some busybodies-with whom long residence in Ottawa makes us fairly familiar, no matter which Government is in power-have been at work. In another department a job-not to put too fine a point upon it-has been "framed up" for a person who is not even a resident of this country, and the qualifications have been so drawn -that they just apply to this

particular person and nobody else "would have a look in." Now, that is the point of my inquiry, and that is why I would like my hon. friend to obtain more details about this particular appointment than he seems to be in possession of to-day.


Michael Clark: I should like to be permitted to make one general observation. My hon. friend the minister, in a statement which I described at the time as very interesting, mentioned a "vigorous immigration policy," and he mentioned it for the purpose of putting a question to the committee: "What is a vigorous immigration policy?" I am not sure that the minister got anybody to tell him what was a vigorous immigration policy. His speech, as I pointed out at the time, was rather non-committal and it was noncommittal on that point also. He indicated certain lines along which his policy would be vigorous, and he pointed out that his decisions along such lines would be flatly moved against by the governments of the countries in Europe where he was operating. Now, so far as the minister is opposed to what may popularly be considered a vigorous immigration policy, I am in agreement with him. I do not think that we need in Canada to-day a vigorous immigration policy. I hold very strong views upon this point. I have been nearly twenty years in Canada and I have profound faith in its possibilities for men and women who are worth having as citizens, and I hold the view that if this country is properly ruled-I am not now going into what I mean by that phrase: I will take an early opportunity of explaining my observations along that line, possibly in the Budget debate-if this country were properly ruled we should have a policy of immigration which was vigorous in the matter of effectiveness because every satisfied settler would be an immigration agent without salary. In short, that is my view on this matter. I think if we could send it out to the world, as we might very well be able to do, having regard to the gifts which Providence and nature have put in our hands, that Canada is the best country and the cheapest country and the country of greatest opportunity in the world to-day, we would get the very best classes of immigrants and get' them very cheaply. Now I have said enough to indicate that if the minister himself is really opposed to a vigorous policy, I am in agreement with him. But when you come to analyze this question of vigorous immigration policy;
when you come to analyze the word "vigorous," you might very well, as I have indicated, apply the word to an immigration policy if it was effective in getting good immigrants. But there is a vigorous side to the minister's policy-a very vigorous side, and it is a most unhealthy vigour because it is along the line of expense. I note that in these details of civil government, while the minister is actually restricting the immigration-and I think wisely; with regard to the general policy of his department I am agreed-there is an increase of $50,000 in the items of civil government over those of the previous year. I have tried to make my point of view clear: that if we have a non-vigorous policy with regard to the pushing of the advantages of Canada, then we should not have this vigour in expenditure. We preach economy and we all profess to believe in it, but I want to bring to bear upon the mind of the minister as one member of the Government- 3 p.m. not wanting him to carry any more than his own particular share of the burden-that if we are going to economize in the expenditure of public money we have to begin somewhere. I would like to hear how the minister accounts for an increase of $50,000 in civil government alone. Altogether I think the department are spending about $2,000,000, and the department is a new one, created since the war. If we are going on extending our expenditures in this way, we may talk economy theoretically as long as we like, but we are rapidly running the country into a position of virtual insolvency. I have the utmost sympathy with the ministry with regard to how they are going to raise taxation in the coming Budget. I know their unparalleled efforts in the war, along with the unparalleled efforts of our people; no one has a higher appreciation of what Canada did in the war, and for all the expenses that the minister has been run into on that account I offer no criticism. But this is a different matter, and I submit to the minister that the last form in which he should be vigorous is in the form of expenditure in connection with a department which does not think it should pursue a vigorous policy along other lines.


James Alexander Calder: I shall deal now with only one or two of the points raised by my hon. friend. In the first place, I did not say the other day when I was addressing the House that I was opposed to the adoption of a vigorous immigration policy.


Michael Clark: No, my hon.
friend was non-committal. He did not know what it was, so he could not say it.


James Alexander Calder: I stated that during the
last two or three years the department and the Goverment had exercised all the power and influence it could to get certain classes of people into this country and that in that respect we were acting as vigorously and as energetically as we could. I would like to- make that perfectly clear, in the first place. I stated, as well, that we were opposed to certain classes of people coming in at this time and that because of that the Government was put to a great deal of expense. I would say that fully half the work of the entire department in Ottawa has to do with all sorts of cases that arise in connection with people who are struggling to get into Canada. We have an enormous correspondence in that respect, a correspondence that must be taken care of. The hon. member for Red Deer would be the last to say that we should not have a sufficient staff here for that purpose. Again, there has been cast upon the Department of Immigration work that is entirely apart from any effort to get people into Canada. Let me give you a very simple illustration. This Parliament passed, not long ago, a new naturalization law. The Department of State, before it issues a certificate under that law, must know, in the case of every foreigner:	when he came into Canada,
where he entered, and, in general, whether the statements made in his application are true. As a consequence of that we have to keep complete and accurate records and have those records always readily available. We have had to change our whole system in that regard, .and we have a staff constantly employed in furnishing that information to the Department of State. If we want to do away with that, well and good; if we want to have a repetition of the frauds that were committed in the past in connection with the issue of naturalization certificates, it would be very easy to do away with this work. I could cut down the expenditure by hundreds of thousands if this House would agree to it. Further:	Some years ago Parliament
turned over to the Department of Immigration the whole work of policing the entire border between Canada and the United States, for the purpose of keeping undesirable people out of the country. As a consequence of that, we have an expenditure of at least $500,000, if not $600,000 or $700,000, on account of this work alone. Thus it will be seen that our total fMr. Calder.l
expenditure, as show-n in the Estimates for immigration, is not solely for the purpose of endeavouring to induce people to come in to Canada. Other duties and responsibilities have been thrown upon the department, which duties must be carried out as long as the law stands as it is. Prom my knowledge-and I think I have a fairly accurate knowledge-of the department, and the mass of detail work that must necessarily be carried out, I think I can say without fear of contradiction, that the Department of Immigration is not overstaffed. Many hon. members have some knowledge of the details of the work that is carried on in the department, and I am sure I am safe in stating that there are no unnecessary officials in that department. Where certain duties and responsibilities are thrown upon the department by statute, those duties must be carried out. It is most important that the mass of correspondence that reaches us from all parts of the country should be dealt with as promptly as possible. Since the beginning of this session, I have had instances with members of this House where some person was probably held up and debarred from entering Canada or another person was deported before there was an opportunity of dealing with the merits of the case, simply by reason of a short delay:	It is necessary, therefore,
that in the administration of a department like the Immigration Department, where you are dealing with the rights and obligations of individuals-their right to come in or the need of rejecting them-a sufficient staff should be on hand to enable the department to carry on the work as expeditiously as possible.


Mr. DAVIS:: What is the system by which regard is kept of American immigration to Canada, and of immigration from Canada to the United States? It has been stated by the United States authorities that there is a very considerable difference between their records and ours, much to our disadvantage, and it seems to me there is a flaw, in that connection, either in their records or in ours. Perhaps the minister can offer some explanation.


James Alexander Calder: That is another case, where, if the House desires that information, it can be very easily arranged for. All that would be necessary would be simply to duplicate our staff, and instead of spending only five or six hundred thousand dollars on border work, to spend another five

or six hundred thousand dollars to keep tab on people who are leaving Canada.


Fred Langdon Davis: Is that what the Americans do?


James Alexander Calder: They check everything
going in. As regards people who are coming in to Canada as immigrants, to study in Canada, every one of those must fill out a card giving all particulars regarding himself, his birth, etc. Those are recorded here and kept on file for reference. If we are to provide measures that would keep a check on all people going out of Canada, that would simply mean duplicating our staff. We have just a sufficient staff to look after trains coming in and other means of entrance into Canada. Very few of our staff would be able to work on trains going out. Therefore, if we are to have reliable information as to the number of people leaving Canada permanently, we would have practically to duplicate that staff. Does the committee desire that an expenditure of three, four or five hundred thousand dollars should be made for that purpose? We have not attempted up to the present time to keep any record of that class.
Mr. JACOBiS:	We have given some
figures to the public as to the number of Canadians who have left the country, and those figures do not tally with the figures given by the United States authorities.


James Alexander Calder: When were they given out?


Samuel William Jacobs: About three months ago.


Charles Murphy: As I understand the
minister's answer to the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Davis), if that gentleman or any other gentleman wanted information as to the number of people leaving Canada for the United States, that information could be got only from the American authorities.


James Alexander Calder: That is all;


Charles Murphy: We would, therefore, be dependent upon them for the accuracy of the figures.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that not sufficient? Surely the Americans will not cook their figures with regard to Canadians entering that country. Why spend half a million dollars to find out how many went out of Canada, if we can get that information from the Americans?


James Alexander Calder: That depends on the method by which their records are kept.


Samuel William Jacobs: I presume they keep good records.


James Alexander Calder: Then, I presume we can depend upon their records.


Fred Langdon Davis: I understand the Americans have a system of keeping track of incoming and outgoing persons, and their figures differ by many thousands from ours. What is wrong with our method of checking? Or what is wrong with theirs?


James Alexander Calder: I could not, of course, explain the matter without knowing how they keep their records. I know that on the whole, our records can be taken as being accurate. Supposing, however, a man is coming in from the United States, travelling on a train. He has a grip with him. The immigration officer sees him, and the man says: "I am going up to Canada only for a visit." As a matter of fact, he is coming into Canada permanently. He is simply lying, and he stays in Canada. That man is not recorded, because he did not tell the truth to our officer. As regards all persons coming into Canada from the United States or abroad, if they will tell the truth when they are coming in, their statements are _ recorded accurately, and we know exactly the number of immigrants. I use the word "immigrant" as applying to a person coming to Canada for the first time to stay in Canada, and our figures as regards the number of immigrants are, on the whole, accurate. There may be a number who slip past our officers and who continue to stay in Canada, whom we do not catch at all. There may be some who state that they are coming in to stay, who do not stay, but who leave Canada within a short period, and in that respect, our figures will be inaccurate. These things cannot be controlled.


Fred Langdon Davis: The substance of the minister's statement is that he does not know what the American system is by which they get different results from ours.


James Alexander Calder: That is right.


Georges Henri Boivin: Salaries of agents and employees-


Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: The minister stated that our immigration officials work on the trains. If they worked on a train going one way-


Georges Henri Boivin: The work and salaries of agents and employees in the Outside Service are included in the item which the Chairman has been attempting to place before the committee. Hon. members persist in discussing this matter on the item

now before the committee, and in doing so, they are not in order. If the hon. member will permit me to read the next item, his question will be perfectly in order.


Fred Langdon Davis: The fault, in a sense, is mine and not that of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid). I understood that this was an item by which the immigration staff kept their records. That is what we are inquiring about and, therefore, the discussion distinctly comes under the item which we are considering. The minister, at least, referred to it in that sense.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member ftfr Neepawa was quite in order, because his question related to the keeping of the records at Ottawa. Immediately after the question had been asked, the discussion wandered to the work of agents and employees at the border and the manner in which the statistics are kept. All that comes under item No. 52. The question was quite in order, but the subsequent discussion was not relevant.


Michael Clark: As regards
your ruling, Sir, may I appeal to your leniency just a little by reminding you of the fact that the Immigration Estimates have taken a rather peculiar course? When the minister introduced his Estimates, he made a very long and most interesting statement, and he appealed to the committee for a debate; in fact, he rather courted a debate upon his statements. And, then, very suddenly, at a certain period of the evening, he withdrew his Estimates in the middle of the debate which he himself had started. As far as I know, that debate has not been continued, and I should very respectfully suggest that perhaps a little liberty should be allowed to us in view of the peculiar course the debate has taken, and that the minister should not be altogether baulked in his wish to have his own mind broadened by communications of reasonable length from the committee in regard to the subject.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Chairman, of
course, is entirely in the hands of the committee, and if it is the unanimous desire of the committee that the debate should be continued and that the questions and answers should be of a general nature and relate to all subjects that could properly be discussed under the Estimates of the Department of Immigration, the Chairman certainly has no objection, but as we are starting a new day, and no mention of the debate had been made, the Chair-
[The Chairman.]
man felt it his duty to keep the committee to the respective items under consideration.


James Alexander Calder: I would like to suggest that if this item be allowed to pass, the next vote is a general one, covering all our Outside Services, and it would give the widest latitude for discussion. The next vote is of such a nature as to open up the whole subject.


Michael Clark: I did not mean anything so wicked as to re-open the whole debate. I am sure the minister does not take me for an obstructionist, but I think a few remarks that are perhaps a little wide of the item under discussion should be allowed. We shall get on all right.


John Flaws Reid: I was not going to ask a question, but to make an explanation. I would not have asked my question if the minister had not mentioned the matter. What I had intended to do was to state to the House that I had before me the annual report of the Commissioner General of Immigration of the United States, which sets forth the number of immigrants we lose to the United States, but if it is not in order to bring that matter up now, and I shall have an opportunity later, I shall bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Samuel William Jacobs: I would like some information with regard to the salary of the Exhibit Decorator. Last year he was down at $900, and this year he is down at $1,320. Who and what is the Exhibit Decorator? What are his duties?


James Alexander Calder: He is one of the officials of the Exhibition Branch of the department. It appears that this man was appointed under the old regulations as a member of the Inside Service at Ottawa; otherwise, he would appear in the Estimates with the rest of the exhibition staff. There has grown up some old practice that I could never quite get to the bottom of, that if a man was once appointed to the Inside Service at Ottawa, there was always a struggle to retain him in the Estimates. This man is a decorator. I presume that his time is occupied in arranging display exhibits, which require a certain amount of painting or fixing up.


Samuel William Jacobs: Do I understand that we want to decorate and exhibit our immigrants? I do not understand exactly what his duties are.


James Alexander Calder: There is an Exhibition Branch in the department. It was formerly in the Department of Agriculture, but has been transferred to the Immigration Department. It has a staff of about five or six.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Exhibits, I suppose,
such as they have at the Windsor station, Montreal?


James Alexander Calder: Yes. The time of the staff is spent in arranging exhibits on a small scale. The staff has prepared exhibits for 100 state and county fairs in the United States, if I am not mistaken, and it has also prepared a good many small exhibits for what they call the one-day fairs in Great Britain.


Samuel William Jacobs: This man's salary has
been raised from $900 to $1,320.


James Alexander Calder: That is about the average increase; about 50 per cent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Personally, I approve
of this expenditure. I have seen some of the exhibits that have been prepared by this staff at the various exhibitions in Europe in which Canada has taken part. I particularly remember the one at Brussels. The Canadian exhibit there was certainly the sensation of the exhibition. It consisted of the reproduction of a farm in Western Canada, with all the necessary appurtenances, and if there were not ten or fifteen thousand people around that exhibit every day, there was not one. It was certainly the feature of that great exhibition. We have on a smaller scale an exhibit of somewhat the same nature at the Canadian Pacific Railway's Windsor Station, Montreal. These exhibits certainly appeal to the would-be immigrant. In London, England, the Canadian Immigration Office, near the statue of Charles the First, in Charing Cross, has exhibits which are most attractive to the people. You can never pass by without seeing a crowd of people in front of the exhibits, making comments on the happiness that awaits those who come to this country.


Samuel William Jacobs: If they can get in.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to ask
the minister a question regarding the inspectors of British Immigration. Are those inspectors located in Canada or in Great Britain? It seems to me that in view of the large number of immigrants coming to this country from the British Isles, the proper place to have them examined would be at the ports in Great Britain. Why
should you force an immigrant to cross the Atlantic, only to be rejected at Quebec, Halifax or St. John? There might be difficulties in having our own agents at ports in foreign countries, such as Holland, Italy or Austria, although there should not be any very great difficulty even there, but certainly as regards Great Britain I think our inspectors, and particularly our medical inspectors, should be located at the chief ports on the other side, and there pass definitely on who should be admitted to this country. It seems cruel to let an immigrant cross the ocean, detain him at the port of entry, and ship him back to the Old Country, when the whole thing could be avoided if the examination were made on the other side. I repeat, it might be a little more difficult to adopt this system in foreign countries, but surely arrangements could be made for having the examination of British immigrants take place at ports in Great Britain.


James Alexander Calder: This is a matter that has been up for discussion many times. Personally, I should like very much to see the suggestion that has been made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) carried out. But I can assure the committee that it bristles with many difficulties. I fear that if we undertook to carry on all the inspectional work that would be necessary on the other side the Government would have to come to the House again for another item of probably $200,000 - or $300,000 in order to meet the expenses that would be involved. The Australian colonies tried that method and dropped it because they found it was very expensive and unsatisfactory. We have tried partially to meet the situation, and when I was overseas this year I took the matter up with the officials of the British Government as well as with our own officials there. We have sent representatives from the Health Department to Great Britain and they have got in close touch with the medical officers of the Board of Trade, who play a part in this work, as well as with the medical officers of the steamship companies. Many conferences have been held, and the medical officers over there have received information which they never had before in regard to the working out of our law and the requirements thereof. In addition to that we have given our agents on the other side authority, to a limited extent, to make use of the medical practitioners in Great Britain for the purpose of preliminary examination. As a result of these two actions

I am inclined to think that a good deal of the hardship that has prevailed in the past will be obviated. My officers tell me that since the visits of our medical officers to British ports-the first visit was made about six months ago-the number of hardship cases has been materially reduced, and I believe that if our work proceeds along that line there will not be as-much difficulty as there has been in the past.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries of Agents and Employees, Outside Service; Canada, $425,000, Great Britain and Europe $115,000, United States $80,000, $620,000.
John Flaws Reid: In regard to
the number of immigrants which we have lost to the United States, I have collected certain statistics which I desire to give to the committee.
The following figures are taken from the Annual Report, for the year 1920, of the Commissioner General of Immigration of the United States:
Year ending June 30
United States to Canada- United States citizens . . Canadian citizens	
Other aliens	1918-19 30,223 9,765 4.015	1919-20 36,511 7,953 4,160Total	44,003	48,624Canada to United States- United States citizens . . Canadian citizens	
Other aliens..	22,441 44,110 29,524	19,504 72,994 51,345Total	96,075	143,843Total immigration from United States	
Total emigration, Canada to United States	44,003 96,075	48,624 143,843Net loss to Canada..	52,072	95,219
I do not know why the report of the Commissioner General of Immigration of the United States is not to be found in the Library of Parliament. It is an important volume and should be available. I would direct the attention of the minister to a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press which I shall read. It was handed to me on the train, when I was returning from the West during the Easter recess, by an English medical doctor who has been travelling in Canada. This gentleman, whose card I have, is Dr. Charles Hawkins, and the cable despatch from London, dated March 31, which he brought to my attention, reads:
The Canadian steamship companies here say that they are receiving from 12 to 15 cancellations daily for passages to Canada, which
[Mr. Calder. J
have been booked by prospective emigrants from the British Isles, the reason given being the continuation of the restriction requiring the increased amount of landing money, which was recently decided upon by the Canadian cabinet. The Canadian immigration authorities here are said to favor this action in so far as it affects continental immigration, but it would appear that it might well be modified in the case of Britishers. It hits hardest those who had booked their passages and made their arrangements before the landing money requirement was altered. Now some of these people find that they cannot go and hence are cancelling their passages daily, much to the discomfiture of the Canadian railway and steamship companies.
Dr. Hawkins told me that he had positive knowledge of a great many immigrants who were cancelling their passages to Canada and who he assured me were agriculturists and farm labourers. Instead of coming to Canada they were re-booking their passages to Australia. I see the minister smiles; no doubt he knows all about it. Well, if such is the case, I think it is most unfortunate that we should lose immigrants of this class. In my opinion, if the British agriculturist and farm labourer have not even $25 in their possession we should welcome them.


James Alexander Calder: If I may interrupt the
hon. member, I can save the time of the committee. The $250 that we require of immigrants is not asked for in the case of agriculturists and agricultural labourers. No farmer, farm labourer, or domestic coming to Canada is required to have $250.


Mr. CRERAR:: To what class does the
regulation apply?


James Alexander Calder: To skilled and unskilled labour, particularly the artisan class.


John Flaws Reid: May I ask then how this information has got abroad?


James Alexander Calder: You see some funny things in the press at times.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.


John Flaws Reid: I have this
gentleman's card here and he assures me this is quite correct.


James Alexander Calder: He was absolutely mistaken.


John Flaws Reid: I must take the minister's word and I am glad to hear him make the statement. I was very' much surprised at what was told me. There is another matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the minister. I have here a booklet published by J. Obed Smith in which he makes the statement that immi-

grants coming to Canada cost us $6 per head. Does the minister confirm that statement?


James Alexander Calder: I should put it for last year at $5.


John Flaws Reid: That is a very low figure, but does the minister deduct the emigrants that we lose to the United States? That would make a different showing altogether, would it not? Mr. Smith, our immigrant official in the Old Country, makes some very good recommendations in the booklet to which I have already referred, which no doubt the minister has read. Mr. Smith states that after our immigrants land at the port of debarkation the train accommodation is very often not what it ought to be. I know that thirty-nine years ago the accommodation on the railway was not what it should have been and I speak from experience. Mr. Smith also recommends that on every one of our immigration cars, usually known as colonist cars, an official should be placed, and I think the recommendation is a very good one. Perhaps the minister will see what can be done in that direction so that our immigrants shall' not be preyed upon at very many stations where they stop to purchase goods. Furthermore, when our immigrants reach the city of Winnipeg they are turned loose very often. I would like to ask the minister if he has any policy whereby the immigrants can be taken care of from the time they leave the port of debarkation until they reach their destination-whether they are going to work for some farmer or whether they are going to locate right away on land either purchased or homesteaded. Does not the minister think some improvement can be effected along the line of taking care of our immigrants, something of a similar nature to that which has been adopted by the Soldier Settlement Board?


James Alexander Calder: I would be only too glad to put into operation a whole series of improvements I have in mind along these lines. No person comprehends the necessity or value of that more than I do; but again I would say that these things cost money. On the one hand you have members of Parliament complaining most bitterly of the increased cost of government, the increased expenditures, and so on. There are very many improvements that could be made in many departments of government but, I say again, they cost

money. Now to put into being an organization that will look after the immigrant who comes into Canada, in every province of the Dominion, follow him up, see that he is placed, and all that sort of thing, would mean a staff of one hundred or probably one hundred and fifty. These people scatter all over the Dominion, and to follow them through on every train, see that they are properly placed on farms, in factories, and elsewhere, see if they are contented, and all that sort of thing, would necessitate a staff of one hundred or one hundred and fifty and the cost to the country for salaries alone would reach probably $150,000 or $200,000. A very good thing -very helpful and good for the immigrant and for Canada-but, I say again, it costs money. If the House is prepared to vote the money for such a purpose, and for other work as well, I would be only too glad.


Samuel William Jacobs: Better to spend money
for that purpose than to give it to the provinces to spend for roads.


John Flaws Reid: As a business proposition I would draw the minister's attention to the larger flow of immigrants from Canada to the United States as compared with the flow of immigrants from the United States to Canada. The net loss for the year 1918-19 was in round numbers 52,000, and for the year 1919-20 approximately 95,000. If these immigrants only cost us $5 or $6 a head they are well worth keeping in the country, especially when we realize the high value placed by the Canadian Pacific Railway on a farmer or immigrant who settles along any of its lines of railway.


James Alexander Calder: I am not going to question the figures given by my hon. friend -they have been discussed backwards and forwards every year for the past ten years. There would be only one way probably of finding out the truth and that is by the census. When the census is taken we will know exactly what the figures are-we will have our immigration figures for the last ten years, and we shall know as to whether or not these figures are correct. Looking at the position in Canada to-day, in so far as the urban population is concerned, does my hon. friend mean to say there has been a decrease in that population? There is no city in Canada that is not overcrowded to the extent that people cannot get houses to live in. Take the situation as regards the rural population of Canada. There



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
have been here and there certain decreases; but I doubt very much if, on the whole, the rural population of Canada has decreased in the last decade. I say that on the whole you will find places where there has been some decrease, I daresay there has been a change in the proportion between the rural and the urban population; but if you will take our total rural populations as shown at the last census I doubt very much, when we ascertain what the new figures are, if you will find any material discrepancy there.
Samuel William Jacobs: There is the natural increase.


James Alexander Calder: I think it will be found that there is a very material increase.


Samuel William Jacobs: I said there has been a natural increase.


James Alexander Calder: Oh, more than the
natural increase because you can estimate that. As regards our urban population, our cities, throughout Canada from coast to coast, are simply teeming with people- they simply cannot find places to live in.' So I say, there is only one way eventually whereby we will be able to check up these increases and that is through the census in both countries.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: I wish to ask the minister whether he, as Minister of Immigration, and the Government, have considered a vigorous immigration policy whereby selected immigrants may be placed along the line of the national railways and if so has he anything to say with regard to it?


Frank S. Cahill: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Calder: Of course our whole
policy, in so far as agriculturists are concerned, is to bring as many of that class as possible to Canada. We have not, I may say, directed our attention to placing these people along the Transcontinental and the Canadian Northern railways here in Ontario-that has not been done.


Frank S. Cahill: Why not?


James Alexander Calder: That has not been done with the exception of certain people who came from the eastern part of the United States, a number of French Canadians, who are being repatriated. Many of them have gone up into those northern regions, but outside of that we have not directed our attention along those particular lines.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I did
not mean particularly along the lines of railway in the province of Ontario; I had reference to the western provinces also. Would not such a policy be worthy of the serious consideration of the Government?


James Alexander Calder: Yes, I think so.


John Flaws Reid: I would like
to draw the minister's attention to the work done in the early eighties by the colonization companies in the western provinces, or what at that time the North West Territories. I was one of the immigrants who settled upon the land as a result of colonization work of this kind, and I know that these companies did very good work indeed. Of course some of them were not a success; but the York Farmers' Colonization Company, of which the minister has no doubt heard, occupied itself with settlement in the Yorkton district. Such a company as that was a very great benefit to the settlers, and its local agent helped them in the purchase of their supplies. Such a company as that was of very great benefit to the settlers. They were also given local land agents, and the settlers were able to make their homestead entries right in the township where they made their selection. I know of some immigrants who settled outside what was at that time known as the Yorkton land district, and they had to go all the way to Regina, or Pile o'Bones, as it was known then, to make their entries, a distance of 135 miles. If some such scheme as that was evolved, I am sure that benefits would result in our favour. Just a word about our immigration officials who work on the trains. I presume they meet the trains at the border coming in from the United States. They must travel back on the trains, say, from Winnipeg as one point, to meet the trains again. If they worked on the trains incoming, why could they not check up the people on the outgoing trains? That may be possible.	.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Can my hon. friend give the figures of the total immigration during the last decade?


James Alexander Calder: I gave figures to the
House for the five-year periods from 1896 down to 1911, then for the three following years and for the last three years. Those figures will all be found in Hansard.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall look them up.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: I should like to take advantage on this item, Mr. Chairman, of

the invitation extended by the minister to discuss generally the question of immigration and to put forward certain views which I hold and which I believe are held by a great many people in this country. Immigration is a very large question, for the reason that some nine million of us occupy a country which is over three million seven hundred thousand square miles in area, and we are distributed in a most extraordinary fashion, for we occupy a ribbon of territory not more than 300 miles wide at any point stretching from coast to coast. And this great country is capable of maintaining without difficulty a population of two or three hundred million people. If we are to become a great nation we must have population. On the other hand, many people regard unrestricted immigration, particularly of foreigners, with grave apprehension. The question is viewed from four standpoints-the sentimental, the patriotic, the humanitarian, and the material. While some hold that it is dangerous to allow too many foreigners to come in, there are others who take the humanitarian view that we have no right to restrict immigration into a country of such vast area and such boundless natural resources, especially while other countries are overcrowded and congested. And there are those who take the material point of view, that for the purpose of exploiting our resources and developing the country the more immigrants we bring in the better. A variety of causes superinduce immigration, being chiefly the following: industrial depression, political oppression, religious persecution, poverty at home, and prosperity here, the solicitation of friends and relations here, employment agencies, facility of transport, solicitation of steamship companies, assisted emigration, and epidemics.
In considering the people who come to this country of foreign blood, we have to consider them in the light of possible amalgamation in the future or immediate assimilation. Amalgamation is defined as that process which occurs when, by reason of proximity, nations grow together by intermarriage, a process which takes hundreds of years. The best example of this is perhaps the British race itself, the last immigrants having arrived in the British Isles somewhere about 1066. The process of amalgamation has gone forward steadily and as a result a type has been produced. We are not particularly concerned for the next two or three hundred years at least with the process of amalgamation, but we are concerned with the process of assimilation, which is defined as that process whereby immigrants may learn to speak our language, understand our customs, and the working of our political machinery, whereby they may take their places with us upon terms of equality. But it may be laid down that the process of assimilation is rendered slow and difficult or quick and easy precisely in the proportion which the foreign element bears to the British element. That, I think, is fairly obvious. If we have one foreigner living among four men of British blood,-surrounded, so to speak, by men of the British race-the process of assimilation will be quick and easy; but if we have, say, two foreigners, to three men of British blood the process is slower, and the number that can be assimilated is necessarily smaller, until the time might come when by the increase of the percentage of persons of foreign birth the process of Canadianization might come to a standstill, and that of "foreignization" might begin.
I recognize the virtues of the foreigners who have come to us in the past, particularly those who settled upon the western prairies and who came to us with practically nothing but their ability to work. They have made a great success, they have increased agricultural production, and they are slowly but surely climbing up the social and cultural ladder. But there are certain statistics which cannot be denied, and I desire to place them upon Hansard because I believe they are worthy of study by our people. I will take first the immigration between the years 1900 and 1910, arranged to show the immigration of the British born and the foreign born, with the total and the percentages thereof. These are the figures:
	British	Foreign	
Year	born	born	Total1900.. ..	. . . 5,141	18,754	23,8951901.. ..	. . 18,810	37,339	66,1491902.. ..	. . 17,259	50,120	67,3791903.. ..	. . 41,792	86,572	128,3641904.. ..	. . 50,374	79,957	130,3311905.. ..	. . 65,359	80,907	146,2661906.. ..	. . 86,796	102,268	189,0641907.. ..	. . 55,791	68,876	124,6671908.. ..	, . . 120,182	142,287	262,4691909.. ..	. . . 52,901	94.007	146,9081910.. ..	, . . 59,790	149,004	208,794574,195	910,091	1,484,286
Now, that immigration had a certain effect upon the population of this country. I have obtained from the Dominion Statistician the figures as to the number of persons in Canada of British descent, French descent and foreign descent, in 1901 and 1911 respectively. They are as follows:

1901	1911
Per cent Per cent
British descent	
57.03	54,08French descent	
30.71	28.51Foreign descent	
14.46	17.40
In other words, during that decade the number of persons in Canada of British descent fell three points; the number of persons in Canada of French descent fell two points, and the number of persons of foreign descent increased by something like 4 per cent.


Frank S. Cahill: Has the hon. member any statistics with regard to people of Canadian descent?


William Antrobus Griesbach: The Dominion statistics give only, as a matter of policy I believe, the racial descent of the individual. I give the figures as furnished to me by the Chief Statistician. I will now read the figures of immigration for each of the years in the following decade, from 1911 to 1920. In this case the number of immigrants from the United States each year is shown:
British	United	Other	Tear	Isles	States	Countries	Totals1911..	. . 123,013	121,451	66,620	311,0841912..	.. 128,121	133,710	82,406	354,2371913..	. . 150,542	139,009	112,881	402,4321914. .	. . 142,622	107,530	134,726	384,8781915..	. . 43,276	59,779	41,734	144,7891916..	. . 8,664	36,937	2,936	48,5371917..	.. 8,282	61,389	5,703	75,3741918. .	. . 3,178	71,314	4,582	79,0741919. .	. . 9,914	40,715	7,073	57,7021920..	. . 59,603	49,656	8,077	117,336687,215	821,490	466,738	1,975,443The totals show:	British immigration
687,215; foreign immigration 1,288,228; total, 1,975,443 or 32 per cent British and 68 per cent foreign. Contrasting these figures with those of the previous decade, which showed a falling off in the numbers of persons of British and French descent and a substantial increase in the number of persons of foreign descent, it is reasonable to assume that the census of 1921 will disolose that there has been a still further falling off of the British element in this country with a very substantial increase of the foreign element.


Michael Clark: Of course
my hon. friend recognizes that the war was a potent influence in producing the results shown by his figures.


William Antrobus Griesbach: There has been some discussion of a policy of immigration, and as to the cost of immigration, and so on. I believe it will be admitted by all concerned that our problem is not a problem of getting people to come here, for the whole world is willing to come to Canada if it can get here; our problem is cautiously to admit those who are fit to come here. In an article by Kenneth L. Roberts in the Saturday Evening Post of a few days ago, there is a long discussion of the situation in Europe, and its effect on immigration to the United States:	I am told that the United States
has just recently passed a law, or is about to pass a law, restricting the number of immigrants admitted to that country to 365,000 per year. There can be only two forms of restriction; restriction by numbers, and restriction by classification or qualification. It may happen, and it probably will, that restriction by classification or qualification will in the end produce numbers that we did not expect, and that we shall be unable to deal with. I shall just read the concluding paragraphs of this article I have referred to.
"All of the lines", he told me early in 1921, "are preparing- for greatly increased emigrant business. In the spring they are going to tap new districts for passengers. They are preparing additional emigrant hotel, barrack and quar-anntin e-station facilities. These preparations are based on urgent messages from their agents in all the countries.
"As soon as Germany and Austria are opened for emigration the present flood will be'greatly increased. When Russia is opened, then will come the deluge. The people who are coming are the lowest type of humanity that Europe can send. America has got to keep them out or suffer bitterly in the future."
Americans in Europe are warning their country against the classe of people that are pouring into it, just as they warned it that typhus would break out if a strict quarantine was not imposed. They know the situation, and every word of their warnings is true.
The warnings can never be made strong enough, because of the gravity of the situation and the limitations of the English language.
If no emergency exists for America in respect of immigration, the America that exists to-day is vastly different from the America of ten years ago.
In other parts of the article the writer goes on to describe the mental, moral and physical condition of these millions of people who are clamouring to get to this country if that be possible.
As a result of a study of these figures, I have reached certain conclusions. As I said at the outset, the process of amalgamation does not interest us at the moment. What we are interested in is the process of assimilation. I have adverted to the danger of bringing to this
[Mr. Griesbaoh.'l
country people unacquainted with our system of government, with our institutions and our ideas, and placing our resources and the control of government in their hands. That is a project that is fraught with danger, and my view is this: I think we ought to fix a definite ratio, based on statistics, and we ought no to exceed that ratio. We can restrict either by numbers or by classification and qualification, but no matter by which method we seek to accomplish our end, the Government should have power arbitrarily to decide the moment when that limit is reached, and thereafter we should stand fast and deal with the situation as we have it, until it is dealt with completely. In the determination of this ratio, and in the process of assimilation, we shall have to consider as factors whether we are going to continue the policy of the past, which is the policy of standing still and doing nothing to educate or assimilate the foreigner, or whether, on the other hand, we shall adopt some comprehensive scheme of education which will aid the process of assimilation. If we decide that we shall do no more than we have done in the past, then the ratio we shall decide upon will be a certain figure. On the other hand, if we decide that we will undertake the forced assimilation of the foreigner by a process of education, then, of course, we can raise the ratio or the standard of qualification which may be decided upon.
In my judgment, we cannot look forward to an increased foreign immigration, based upon the figures which I have given, without grave apprehension and misgiving. We cannot look forward to an increased foreign immigration with any degree of satisfaction unless, in the first place, it is controlled and restricted, and unless, in the second place, we adopt a great nation-wide, all-embracing system of education, backed by all the power of the State. Last year I discussed this question very briefly in passing, and now I would say that I know of no plan or scheme of education that has been put forward which will assist or aid in assimilation save one. The churches are practically powerless; our educational system gets us nowhere; there is no plan before this country except the one I have mentioned which begins to measure up to the magnitude or importance of the task. The system which I would lay before the committee-a conclusion which I have arrived at quite independently of the solution itself, and based merely on these figures- is the plan of universal military service

which I laid before the House last year. There you have a scheme which is nationwide, all-embracing, and backed by the supreme power of the State. From the operation of this system no person can escape. You would take your young foreigner at the age of 19, and at the ages of 19, 20, 21 and 22, four years, you would give him three months of military training each year, during which time he would learn to speak our language, keep himself clean, be obedient, and become disciplined. The duties of citizenship and its responsibilities would be impressed upon him, also the fact that he might some day be called upon to defend this country. There you have a system, and the only system that has been proposed, which I believe can adequately or effectively deal with this great problem of keeping the people of this country true to the ideals and traditions which have brought us thus far.
This is a great question. Our actions in this decade are more or less irrevocable. We cannot in this matter of the movement of people and population undo tomorrow what we may do to-day. Therefore, for the future happiness and greatness of this nation, let us hope that in this great matter we come to-day to a right conclusion.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister mentioned a few moments ago that he had been looking after colonization on the Transcontinental, and had expended a certain amount of money in the movement of French Canadians from the Eastern States and from the eastern part of the province of Quebec to the Transcontinental. I should like to ask the minister what part he has had in settling that section of the Transcontinental known as the Abitibi country. What assistance has he given to the colonization departments of the Quebec and Ontario Governments in locating settlers along the Transcontinental system in Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec?


James Alexander Calder: We have not given any direct assistance. In the eastern part of the United States we have our agencies at two centres, Manchester and Biddeford, where there is a fairly large French Canadian population that has been there for some years. Our officers at those two points have been in touch with the people, and, while I do not know the exact details, I have no doubt that hundreds if not thousands of people have been induced to return to Canada, some of whom doubtless must have been directed to those regions in Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec.


Frank S. Cahill: Has the minister ever
been to the Northern Quebec district?


James Alexander Calder: No.


Frank S. Cahill: I asked the minister last
year if he would be good enough to make a visit to Northern Quebec and I think he promised me at that time that he would make an effort to do so. The Department of Immigration seems to be at a standstill; so far as colonization is concerned it certainly is absolutely stagnant. There is an opportunity in Northern Quebec, and in Northern Ontario as well, for the execution of a vigorous colonization policy as well as for active work in regard to immigration, for the figures which the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) has given are adverse to Canadian immigration. As the hon. member pointed out, we are losing more people than we are getting. We have been bringing in people for the last fifty years at a great cost to Canada, and we have not only lost every last man, woman and child of them, but we have also lost a portion of the Canadian people as well. We have lost more Canadians, either native born or those who came and settled in Canada, than we have brought to the country in that time, and the vital statistics will substantiate that statement. Within the last forty or fifty years, I venture to say, we have not retained our natural increase in Canadian population. There must be something wrong. In the period from 1901 to 1911 we made quite an advance in immigration and, as the minister is well aware, in colonization as well; but I do not believe we have made any progress in colonization since the close of that period, and we certainly made none previous to that time. During that period a policy was in vogue which aimed at bringing in to Canada, and putting on the land, all the people that we could get. But the Government since that time have adopted a different system. If the minister will go to the Abitibi country, as it is his duty to do, or, at least, if he will send his officials there to make a study of the conditions and the opportunities for settlement, he will be doing as good work for Canada as he canr possibly do in any other direction. There is abundant opportunity in that district for the French Canadian settler to take up land, because the country appeals to him and he likes it. But he is not given a fair chance; he is not given the encouragement which he should have. The French Canadian is the - only man that will settle in Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec,

and until we settle these districts our Transcontinental railway will be a failure.
Until you settle the great districts which are in need of population in Ontario, Quebec and the western provinces, you will continue to have railway difficulties. We have the land, the resources and the opportunities; all we need is a Minister of Immigration and Colonization with courage and foresight, a man who is anxious to bring people into the country and settle them on the land. The minister with such enterprise would render a great service to the country. But instead of that, the minister tells us, in so many words, that his time is taken up in keeping people out of the country; his remarks the other day were tantamount to that. There are thousands of people who want to come into Canada, but apparently the minister thinks it advisable to keep them out. He did not mention anything about a colonization policy, and in answer to an hon. member on the other side this afternoon, he made a statement to the effect that he had made no attempt at colonization in our northern country. The result of his policy and the general policy of the Government has been to drive people out of Canada. Every few days you may pick up the papers and find something about the Mennonites, or some other class of people in Western Canada, trying to locate elsewhere because they are not treated properly in Canada. They are living up to the understanding they had with the Government when they came in, but the Government of the day are not even attempting to fiulfil their end of the agreement. While it might not be desirable to bring in Mennonites, or Hutterites, or Doukhobors, or Galicians in numbers out of proportion to the balance of the population, yet I claim that they are good settlers and producers and would become good Canadians if given a chance. If my hon. friend had a policy to bring in people from Great Britain and the United States, and desirable people from Europe, and had some policy for their assimilation in Western and Northern Canada, he would at once be increasing the population of the country and adding to its productive capacity. Every man who has given any study to the railway problem to-day realizes that our greatest need, if we are to solve our difficulties, is a progressive immigration and colonization policy. It goes without saying that if the land tributary to the railways is not producing anything the railways cannot pay, and my hon. friend a few days ago held out no hope of any 	'
immigration or colonization. It seems to me that the minister simply throws up his hands and bewails the fact that he is helpless. Well, in that regard he is pretty much in the same position as the rest of the Governemnt; he is in good company. I wonder if his attention has been drawn to an article in MacLean's Magazine, by Fred V. Seibert, B.A.Sc., who deals with the colonization problem in Canada? This gentleman, apparently, has been in the Survey Department for some years and has given considerable study to the land settlement question in Canada. On page 8 of MacLean's Magazine for April, 1921, he says:
Settlement needs directing force. There is weakness in our present system and urgent need of control to correct that weakness.
The article is well worth the attention of the minister, who should give more serious study to the question of immigration, and particularly of colonization. His time would be very much better occupied in a close study Of these questions than in playing politics, because his political career, so far as the Government at least is concerned, is very nearly at an end. He could, however, make for himself a reputation as Minister of Immigration and Colonization if he set himself to the task. If the minister has no policy in regard to immigration, then we are to assume that the present muddled condition of our railways will continue, and it will be impossible for us to overcome our railway difficulties, and, in a few years, utterly impossible to pay our taxation and meet our other heavy obligations. There are thousands of people who would come to Canada and make good citizens, and when the minister says that there is no more homestead land I am afraid he is giving Canada rather bad advertising, because there are millions of acres of land that would be suitable for settlement in Western Canada and in Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec. And if it is necessary to build a few branch line railways to develop that country, I think the investment might be considered a good one. But the indiscriminate settlement of homesteaders is a policy I do not believe in. I am not now advocating the continuance of the policy of homesteading at all; a better policy might be worked out. I am satisfied that we could get hundreds of thousands of good people from the United States and across the seas who would make splendid settlers in this country and who would help discharge our burden and pay our interest charges and taxation for the next few years. I ex-

hort the minister to turn his attention more seriously to these important questions than he has done in the past.


Mr. BOYCE:: I am surprised to hear
the statements of the last speaker in regard to Northern Ontario. I think he has not been up in that part of the country or he would not have such a doleful tale to tell. He has found fault with the minister because there are no immigrants or other persons going into that country. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that I visited that part of Ontario twice during the last ten years and I noticed that a very great improvement had taken place. At New Liskeard a very fine town has sprung up. Within a radius of fifty or a hundred miles of Matheson and Cochrane, the country is very well settled. The hon. member (Mr. Cahill) has always a doleful tale to tell about something, and he may as well talk, about this subject as anything else. He talks about Doukhobors and the like. There is no need to get Doukhobors to settle that country; any amount of good people are going in there-going about as quickly as they possibly can, and that is fairly quick too. I want to tell my hon. friend that there is a fine section of country up there, and ultimately it will be equal to some of the best districts in the older parts of Ontario. I would advise the hon. gentleman to try and assist the minister and the authorities to get people to settle in that northern country and not run it down.


Frank S. Cahill: I cannot allow that
statement to pass unchallenged. I did not run the -country down, I praised it very highly.


George Boyce: Now, take your medicine.


Frank S. Cahill: I do not wish to be misrepresented.


George Boyce: I have sat and listened
to you time and time again and you were never happy unless you were abusing somebody.


Frank S. Cahill: Abusing the Government.


George Boyce: Yes, and I am going to
abuse you and you will have to take it like a man. You are like myself; you are good natured enough and you are not going to get vexed about it. I say:	Be a man and
help Canada all you possibly can; let us all work together shoulder to shoulder and then we will make a success of the development of this country. If we all do what we ought to do, we will make New Ontario a fine part of this Dominion. I do
not like to hear any man run down his country; I do not like a bird that befouls its own nest.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Alexander Calder: There are only one or two items left but I am very sorry that I have to leave now. However, the items are minor ones and we can deal with them later on. Earlier in the afternoon the leader of the Opposition asked if it was the intention of the Finance Minister to lay on the Table the report of the Tariff Committee and the Minister of Railways stated he would give a reply before the House rose this afternoon. I am to advise the House that no such report will be laid on the Table before Monday next. I now beg to move that further consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Immigration and Colonization be postponed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Department of Customs and Inland Revenue, $532,947.50 ; Contingencies, $48,000.
Rodolphe Lemieux: When was the Minister of Customs officially installed in the department? When did he assume the duties of the office after his election?


Hon. R. W. WIGMORE (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue) :: In answer to the hon. gentleman, I think about July 14.


Rodolphe Lemieux: July, 1920?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When did the election take place in St. John?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I think about September 20, 1920.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to ask
my hon. friend if he belongs to the firm of Nagle & Wigmore?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I did; I was a member.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the hon. gentleman still a member?
'Mr. WIGMORE: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Until when was he a member of that firm?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Until-the exact date I could not say-within three months ago.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In his dual capacity of Minister of Customs and member of the firm of Nagle & Wigmore, did the hon. gentleman write any letters concerning the business of his firm?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Mr. Chairman, I think the item under discussion is an item in connection with the Estimates. I do not know that my hon. friend's question has anything to do with the business before the House. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think I am within the rules in questioning the hon. gentleman as regards the administration of his department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before the minister
rose I was about to rise myself. I must say that the questioning of the hon. gentleman seemed to me to be most intimately personal. I have no idea what he is driving at but I submit to you, Sir, that no minister of the Crown, or no member of the House, should be subjected to personal interrogation regarding his private connections unless such interrogation is preceded by a specific charge of some kind affecting the public interest. If such a charge is made in the usual way by an hon. gentleman, upon his responsibility as a member of the House, then it seems to me that no one can object to the interrogation; but I submit to you, Sir, and to my hon. friend who is doing the interrogating, that it is scarcely fair certainly not to the committee and I hardly think to the minister him-se^f to pursue these questions without we on both sides of the House knowing the object, and the purpose, and the basis of the personal interrogations.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Douglas, Strath-cona):: I would ask the hon. member for Maisonneuve, if he is going to pursue this course of interrogation any further, to show what bearing it has upon the Estimates in question. If he is leading up to some question bearing on the Estimates, then I do not think that he would be out of order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Chairman, we are studying the various items of the Customs Department, and that department is under the direction of the hon. minister who is in his seat. What I wish to call his attention to is the fact that he should do one thing or the other-either attend to the business of the department solely, or to his private business, but not use the Customs Department as a means to advertise his own firm. If the Chairman rules that the question is out of order, there are other means to bring it before the House, but I believe that as we are dealing with the Customs Department, I have the right to question the mode of administration pursued by the

hon. gentleman. This is what I wanted to refresh the memory of the minister for, Mr. Chairman. I am informed that since the hon. gentleman took over the administration of his department he has been writing letters right and left in order to promote the business of the firm to which he belongs. To be fair to him, I will read the letter I have in my hand.


Mr. MORPHY:: Order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I first asked him on what date he had taken charge of the department. He said it was in the month of July, that his re-election took place in September, and that he severed his connection with his firm a few weeks ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order before the hon. gentleman reads this letter. Just before you took the Chair I had drawn to the attention of the Chairman who preceded' you (Mr. Douglas) that my hon. friend was pursuing a series of quite intimate personal questions-


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a public, not a personal question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member for Maisonneuve "was putting a series of interrogations to the Minister of Customs of a very intimate, personal character.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They refer to the public interest only.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit, sir, that before this course is pursued, the hon. gentleman should state clearly the connection between his series of questions and, if I might be permitted to use the word, the insinuations in the form of a charge or a definite statement that there is some public interest involved. I failed to gather from the questions anything relating to the public interest, and I do not think that any minister or member should be subjected to such a cross-examination unless the committee are taken into the confidence of the hon. gentleman as to his reasons for submitting the questions; and, further, I submit that the item under discussion being an item in the Customs Department, this course should not be pursued under it. If my hon. friend considers that the Minister of Customs has in any way used his position improperly, then I submit that a charge should be made and the letter read in that connection, and not placed on Hansard when there is no proper opportunity to deal'with it in a parliamentary manner.


Georges Henri Boivin: I regret, that I was not in the Chair to hear the preliminary

remarks made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), but from what I have heard upon the point of order,
I would judge that the question is this: Has an hon. member in Committee of Supply the right to refer to any act of a minister of the Crown which does not concern his official conduct as such minister? The doctrine laid down in May's Parliamentary Procedure on that point is quite clear. At page 486, he says:
Regarding the general conduct of debate- in the committee of supply, it may be observed that remarks on the conduct of a servant of the state, made on the grant containing hi-s salary, must be restricted to his official conduct. The committee of supply does not afford the proper opportunity for discussing, whether a minister should be in the cabinet or not.
Anything, therefore, which would concern the official conduct of the minister would be perfectly in order. On the other hand, any complaint which any hon. member might have to make concerning his conduct in relation to his private life or affairs would be more properly made either upon a motion to go into Supply or introduced as a matter of privilege.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Chairman, the
matter I have to call to the attention of the minister and the committee is one which affects the public interest, and if I were permitted to read the letter which I have in my hand the committee would at once see its relevancy. The letter emanates from the Department of Customs; it is written on the official paper of the department, and in the body of the letter the hon. minister intimates that he writes as Minister of Customs. Therefore, it is in the public interest as it affects the administration of his department. I have no charge to make at present against the minister; that is why I was asking him a few questions. He may have a perfectly satisfactory explanation, of which the committee will be able to judge. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I purpose to read this letter and ask the hon. minister if he admits its authenticity, and what explanation he has to give regarding it. This letter is written on the official paper of the department, and bears the Royal Coat of Arms, it is as follows:
Ottawa, January 13, 1921. French Purchasing Commission,
Care of French Embassy,
London, E.C., England.
Dears Sirs,-I am informed that your Government will have quite a few French steamers taking grain from the port of Saint John N.B. Canada this winter.
The firm of Nagle and Wigmore of which I am a member are very anxious to secure this business. We are the largest firm of shi.pbrokers in Saint John and have done a very large amount of business along these lines.
We have our own tow-boats, tend -to all stevedoring and all matters in connection with the general brokerage business.
As you are no doubt aware, I am Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue in the Canadian Government and I spoke to Sir George Foster, my colleague in the Cabinet who has just returned from England being Canada's representative at the League of Nations' conference which has just been concluded at Geneva and he advised me to write to you.
We are in a position to handle your business to your satisfaction and would refer you to. the Bank of Nova Scotia as to our financial ability.
We are agents for the Canada Steamships Lines Limited, the Compagnie Canadienne Transatlantique, Limited, the Fracanda line and the Acadian Shipping Company Limited.
I would very much appreciate your giving us your business.
Thanking you in anticipation,
I remain,
Yours very truly,
R. W. Wigmore.
Sir, I consider this a matter of public importance, because the hon. minister speaks not only as a member of the firm of Nagle and Wigmore, but as Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue; and he refers to an interview he had with one of his colleagues-indeed, the senior member of the Government, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). It is a matter of public interest whether a minister of the Crown has the right to act in this way, using his position to promote the business of a firm with which until a few weeks or months ago he was connected. My object in bringing the matter before the committee is to ascertain whether or not the hon. gentleman admits that he wrote this letter. I would like to have an answer from the hon. gentleman.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I am not surprised
that the hon. member for Maisonneuve has brought this question up, because I heard that he had a copy of this letter and had had a photograph of it made. I want to say, to begin with, that since being called into the Cabinet I absolutely have received no benefit in any way, shape or form, financial or otherwise, from the firm of which I was a member at that time. I wrote this letter not with any understanding that it would benefit our firm personally. I wrote it as I would write a letter on behalf of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve if he were in the business and came to me and asked me if I would write on his behalf to this firm; for if he had done so I certainly would have written a letter on his behalf.

I did not write it with any idea that there was to be any benefit from the Minister of Customs' standpoint, or in any other way, only in writing to this firm in England they would not know who I was and I simply said I was Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue in Canada. I have received no benefit, as I say, in any way, shape or form, financially or otherwise, from the firm of which I was a member at that time. My partner is carrying along the business and I wrote this letter with the idea of securing business for him just as I would to secure business for any other firm that would write to me. We receive letters from day to day asking us to recommend certain firms and certain people, and it was in this way that the letter was written.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice that there is one gentleman who applauds. I would like to know if the people of Canada would applaud if they were witnesses to what is taking place this afternoon. The hon. gentleman has made his answer and we must accept it. I do accept it, especially that part of it in which the hon. gentleman admits that he signed this letter and mailed it. All comments are unnecessary. Mr. Chairman, in all the annals of British parliamentary government, either in Canada or in the Mother Country, I challenge any one to find such a glaring example of personal interest mixed with the administration of public affairs. No minister of the Crown, either in Canada or in the Mother Country would ever dare to mix his own personal business with the public business. I dare say that if the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce knew that his name had been mentioned in this letter he would at once have disowned the author of it. It is highly improper for a minister of the Crown to boost his own private business whilst using the royal coat of arms and the official paper of the Government. It is improper per se; then, it is improper so far as it affects his competitors in the city of St. John. It is also improper because the hon. gentleman was competing with the Government of which he is a member, because they also have a merchant marine which can perform the business which the hon. gentleman is seeking for his own firm. Besides, he was practically writing to a foreign government, and that indeed is a sad feature I find in this matter.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out to the hon. member for Maisonneuve that under the rules of the House he is obliged

to accept the statement of the hon. minister that he was not interested in the firm at the time the letter was written.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, I accept what the hon. gentleman said, that he wrote the letter. But the letter cannot bear two interpretations. I will read it again. At the top there are the words "Minister of Customs," and immediately underneath, the royal coat of arms. The letter says:
Ottawa, January 13, 1921. French Purchasing Commission,
Care of French, Embassy,
London, E.C,., England.
Dear Sirs:-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I rise to a point of
order. The letter has already been read.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the point of order is well taken. The hon. member certainly has no right to read the letter again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The minister admits
having written and signed the letter, but he qualifies that statement by saying that he had no personal interest, whereas by the very reading of the letter you can see the interest blazoned across it. He says-


Georges Henri Boivin: The letter is on Hansard and it speaks for itself. I must rule that the letter cannot be read again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But I may comment on the letter?


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. gentleman may comment on it, but not read it again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman says he has no personal interest. What does he mean when he says in the letter?-
We have our own tow 1 oats, tend to all stevedoring and all matters in connection with the general brokerage business.
As you are no doubt aware I am Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue in the Canadian Government and I spoke to Sir Geo. Foster, my colleague in the Cabinet who has just returned from England, being Canada's representative-


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. gentleman is evading the rule; he is reading the letter again under the guise of commenting upon it. He certainly cannot do that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. My comment is that the hon. gentleman as Minister of Customs has written a most improper letter which should arrest the attention of the right hon. leader of the Government. The Minister of Customs in writing this letter promoted his own personal interest or the interest of this firm-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, I accept the
statement he madei. I must accept it, qualified by the terms of the letter. At all events I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister to this question-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I rise to a point of order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does he approve of any of his minister's writing such a letter?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My point of order is this. The minister made a statement in reply to the interrogations and the reading of this letter by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), I submit that the hon. member has no right whatever to insinuate or suggest any improper motive on the part of the minister, unless, as I stated before, when I appealed for your ruling, he is prepared, from his seat in the House, to prefer charges of improper conduct against the minister. I submit the hon. gentleman is not in order under the Estimates of this department in pursuing the course that he has pursued.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is quite obvious that the hon. gentleman is not in sympathy with the minister who wrote this letter, and I do not see why he rises to this point of order. I was simiply asking the leader of the Government if, taking cognizance of this letter, he approves it, and if he does not think that a minister of the Crown who could write such a document does not deserve to remain in the Government?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether there is a point of order awaiting your decision or not; if there is, I do not wish to intervene. Otherwise, I want to assure my hon. friend that I am not able to be so profoundly moved by the letter to which he refers as he seems to be. The letter which was brought to my attention-I think it must be the letter to which he has referred this afternoon; I do not need to see it- appears to have been a letter written for a firm of which the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue (Mr. Wigmore) had been, or was a member and with which his name was still associated.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He signed it.


Arthur Meighen: On behalf of that firm. The only reference in the world to his position is by way of explaining how he comes to write the letter, by reason of his being a colleague of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), and

the matter having been brought to his attention by that minister upon inquiry on his return from overseas. I did not know that it was a penal offence for a man writing a private letter to refer to the fact that he was a minister by way of explaining that the information prompting the letter came from a colleague who happened to have been overseas, and to have learned that this commission, whatever it was, was to have boats running to St. John. I tried to inquire, that is, in my mind, whether or not there could possibly be any motive in it that could be criticized in any way at all; but my imagination or ingenuity was not sufficient to enable me to see how there could be any improper motive. If there had been any way in which, as minister, he could have assisted them, the case might have been different, but there is no way in the world by which he could do that. The hon. gentleman was merely explaining how he came to write the letter; being a colleague of Sir George Foster, Sir George Foster told him that the commission would require this service. The reference was merely incidental; there was no improper thought or improper purpose, either real ' or imaginary. It is not for me to approve or disapprove of conduct particularly, unless such conduct is of a character inconsistent with the duties of the minister as a minister. I must say that I was not able in this case to discern conduct of any corrupt or culpable nature.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs and Inland Revenue

salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act

and temporary
buildings and rentals	$5,489,815
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection and preventive service including salaries and expenses in connection with the
Board of Customs	
Miscellaneous-printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, etc., for various ports of entry, express 'charges on samples, stationery and forms, legal expenses, premiums on guarantee bonds, and uniforms for customs
officers	[DOT]	
To provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for
preventive service	
Amounts to he paid to Department of Justice to be disbursed by and accounted for to it, for secret preventive service	
621,380
423.000
238.000
10,000

Arthur Bliss Copp: I noticed in the press the
other day the retirement of Mr. Belyea. Can the minister give me the details about the retirement of this official from the St. John office?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: The amalgamation of
the Departments of Customs and Inland Revenue, not only in St. John, but throughout the Dominion, is in the hands of a committee of the Civil Service Commission, and their report to a subcommittee of the council was that we could dispense with the services of Mr. Belyea in the city of St. John. The positions of Collector of Customs and Collector of Inland Revenue have been amalgamated, and both of them are now in charge of Mr. Lockhart. Mr. Belyea has not been in good health for some time, and he will retire on his regular superannuation allowance.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How does that superannuation allowance compare with the salary which he was receiving?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: His salary was $2,280. He will retire on a superannuation allowance of $1,568.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have only a slight acquaintance with the gentleman in question, but as regards his age, I thought from his appearance he would be a more likely man to take charge of the combined office than Mr. Lockhart, and that the latter would be more in line for superannuation than Mr. Belyea. I was wondering why Mr. Belyea was selected for retirement.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I know this case very well and I can assure my hon. friend that Mr. Belyea's condition is such that it would be impossible for him to carry on long. I would not like to say here just what that condition is.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He was quite satisfied to
retire, was he?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Yes. He was a much younger man that Mr. Lockhart, but there are reasons why he retired. I will give the information to my hon. friend.


Alexander William Chisholm: The minister might
give a similar explanation with regard to the Collector of Customs at Pictou, N.S., Mr. R. P. Fraser. I am informed that he was retired. Why was he retired from the Customs Department and another person taken from the Inland Revenue Department and put in his place?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: That is a similar case. He was retired by the Civil Service Com-

mission. He was, I believe, 76 years of age. It was found possible to do away with one of the two officers at Pictou. The man succeeding him is 67, a much younger officer. Mr. Fraser will retire on quite a substantial retiring allowance.


Alexander William Chisholm: Does the minister invariably take the ages of these officials as a qualification?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: No, the Civil Service
Commission handles the matter.


Alexander William Chisholm: I do not know anything particularly about these two gentlemen. I know that Mr. Fraser is very vigorous and is and always has been a satisfactory officer. It occurred to me that, perhaps, this was pretty cruel treatment to mete out in his old days to a gentleman who was in good health and vigour and able to attend to his office and to his work. He has a large family to support, he is not blessed with too much of this world's goods, and his retiring allowance will not be at all sufficient to meet the necessary requirements of his family. I do not know either of them personally, but this is the information that has been given to me.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: The retirements are
recommended by the Civil Service Commission, who report to a sub-committee of council. Mr. Fraser was the oldest employee there, and I suppose on that account it was decided that he should be retired.


Alexander William Chisholm: Who was his succes1-sor?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Another man by the name of Fraser, who was Collector of Inland Revenue. The two offices were amalgamated.


Alexander William Chisholm: In former times there were certain preventive officers-I forget their title-whose duty it was to go around the country looking for the manufacture of liquors against the law. Has the department retained these officers?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Illicit distillers.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Moonshiners.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: We still have these officers.


Alexander William Chisholm: I know that there are certain officers in the important centres, but I think there used to be subordinate officers here and all over the country, local men, who went around to see if any illicit manufacturing was being done. They re-

ceived only a small salary. Has the minister such officers in his department now?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Yes, they are still employed at the same work.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is there any such
officer in the very important county of Inverness? I know we do not manufacture any illicit liquors there, but I should like to know if there is such an officer in the county.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Yes, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Carrol.


Alexander William Chisholm: Where is he located?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: At Pictou.


Alexander William Chisholm: He is not in the zone at all.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Can the minister tell me the salary of Mr. Schmouth, who is customs officer at Riviere du Loup? In fact, he is both customs officer and inland revenue officer.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: His salary has been
$1,500 from April 1. Formerly it was $1,440.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: For both offices?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Yes.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Does the minister
think that is a fair salary in these days for a married man with twelve children? This man has also been obliged to collect taxes for the Minister of Finance, with no extra remuneration whatsoever. When I was coming up here at the beginning of the session, the poor man asked me if I could not say a good word in his behalf to the minister, to try and get an increase of salary for him.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Unfortunately, the
minister has nothing to do with the salary. If I had my full say in the matter, I think some of these salaries would be very much increased. The salary is fixed by the commission, and this man is receiving the maximum of his class.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand that there has been a reorganization and a combination of the inland revenue and customs- offices in certain localities, possibly all through the country. I think it would be interesting to the committee if the minister would give a short resume, stating where these offices have been combined, and whether a saving has resulted. I think a general statement in regard to his department would be very illuminating to the committee, and would probably save time by anticipating a number of questions that we otherwise might have to ask.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: There is a net decrease in the first item under Civil Government of $116,105.85. With regard to the item now before the House, the increase is partly due to transfers from the one department to the other. I have a report here which it might be just as well to read so that the committee will know the facts as to this increase :
Owing to the consolidation of the two services from April 1, 1921, a combined estimate is submitted for the fiscal year 1921-22.
The first item is that of "Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officer's notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,-and temporary buildings and rentals," the vote for which in 1920-21 was $4,984,433.25, made up as follows:
Customs	$4,250,000 00
Excise 	 734,433 25
The $734,433.25 for excise was made up of the following items, viz.:
Salaries of officers of excise and to provide for increases pending upon the result of excise examinations $465,033 25 Extra duty pay at large distilleries
and other large factories	 15,000	00
Duty pay to officers serving longer
hours at other than special survey 2,000 00 Excise travelling expenses, rent,
fuel, etc	 112,400	00
Amount to provide for salaries in
connection with war taxes .... 140,000 00
The estimate for the fiscal year 1021-22 shows an increase of $505,381.75, of which amount $165,533,75 represents salary arrears for 1920-21 due to reclassification, leaving $339,848 covering increase for the fiscal year 1921-22.
This latter amount is made up of the following items, viz:-
Statutory increases	$144,635.00
Amount to provide for 33 auditors (accountants) in charge of districts to audit books in connection with the collection of Excise Tax ;	[DOT]
for temporary employees relieving regular officers on sick leave with pay; and for promotions, transfers, etc	114,113.00
Amount due to transfer of officers from Preventive Service salaries
under reclassification	 7-5,00-0. (M)
Amount required due to increased
cost of contingencies	 6,100.00
The second item is that of "salaries and travelling expenses of Inspectors of Ports and of other officers on Inspection and Preventive Service, including salaries and expenses in connection with the Board of Customs," the vote for which in 19'2'0-21 was $543,575.00, made up as follows :

Customs	$500,00-0.00
Excise	 43,575.00
3084 '

The $43,575 for Excise was made up of the following items, viz:-
Salaries of inspectors and to provide for increases	$ 32,576.00
Travelling expenses, etc., for inspectors	 11,006.00
The Estimate for the fiscal year 1921-22 shows an increase of $77,8'06, of which amount $34,497 represents salary arrears for 1920-21 due to reclassification, leaving $23,308 covering an increase for the fiscal year 1921-22.
This latter amount is made up of the following items, vfz:-
Statutory increases	 $ 13,780.00
Amount to provide for increased cost of travelling expenses and for employees relieving regular officers on sick leave with pay, and for promotions, etc	 9,52i8.00
The third item is that for "Miscellaneous"- the vote for which in 192>0'-21 was $437,100 made up as follows:-
Customs	$240,000.00
Excise	 197,,104). 00
The $197,100 for	Excise	was made up of
the following items:-
Premiums on guarantee	bonds ..	$	1,600.00
Stamps for imported and Canadian tobacco	 170,000.00
Stamps, etc., in connection with War
Tax	   25,000.00
Minor revenue expenditure	 5	0:0.00
The Estimate for the fiscal year 1921-22 shows a decrease of $14,100. This decrease is made up as follows:
$15,000 less for stamps from which is to be deducted an increase of $900 for premiums on guarantee bonds. [DOT]
The fourth item is "to provide for expenses of maintenance of Revenue Cruisers and for Preventive Service," the vote for which in 192021 was $278,000 made up as follows".-
Customs	$150,000.00
Excise	 12'8,000.00
The $128,000 for Excise was made up of the following items :-
$110,000 for Preventive Service salaries. $18,000 for Preventive Service contingencies. The Estimate for the fiscal year 1921-22 shows a decrease of $40,0 04), which is made up as follows-$75,000 owing to salaries of 65 officers being transferred under the reclassification from this item to that for Port Salaries and Contingencies, less an increase in the Customs Preventive Service owing to the increased cost of maintenance and of repairs to be made to the Customs cruiser "Margaret" and s.s. "Grib."
The fifth item-the amount to be paid to the Department of Justice to be disbursed toy and accounted for to it, for Secret Preventive Service"-the Estimate for 1921-22 remains the same as for last year, viz:-.$10,000.	This
amount being considered sufficient to meet the expenditure.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How much was spent last
year of the amount voted?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: About $8,000.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I understand that
the Customs and the Inland Revenue offi-

ces in Brantford have been combined. Is it the intention to take care of the retiring officers of the Inland Revenue in the Customs Department?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: In Brantford the
Collector of Inland Revenue is to be superannuated.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I should like some information in regard to the case of Listowel, in the county of Perth.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: In that case it is the
Customs Officer who will be superannuated.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The other staff will be
continued?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: In regard to the retirement of the Customs officer there, a man who has been in the service nearly ten years, what provision is being made?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: This man will receive
$125 gratuity plus $1,000.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If he had continued in
his work for the next year or year and a half, having performed ten years service, what would he have got?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: He would have received ten-sixtieths of his average salary for the last three years.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: For life?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the minister think
it is equitable and fair that a servant of the public, who is being dispensed with in that way, should by some arbitrary rule be deprived of what is really a right? Supposing he had nine years and three hundred and sixty-four days in the service; if he had been one day longer he would get a certain allowance. Is it equitable and fair that because he has failed to put in that much longer time he should suffer a reduction? The minister should consider the case of worthy officers who have given their time to the State, and, out of the saving which he contemplates making, he should provide something for cases of that kind, where men have gone out of their ordinary occupations into the service of the country, having unfitted themselves for other work. This seems hard, especially as some of these men have not saved any money out of the meagre pittances they have received from the Government. The salaries in the country do not approximate those paid in Ottawa and the other cities. The men in the country are under paid,

while it might be said that in Ottawa many of them are overpaid. Can the minister really not provide, out of the vast savings he expects to make, something for worthy officers on the outside?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I agree with the hon.
member that in many cases the recommendations for retirement work a great hardship to certain men, but unfortunately the minister of the department has nothing to do with the matter. These recommendations are made by the Civil Service Commission to a sub-committee of Council and are acted upon accordingly. It does seem unfortunate that a man should not benefit by the amount of retirement that would be given to him if he had served a few days longer than the date of his actual retirement* but the ruling having been laid down I cannot help it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I wish to take up the
case of Stratford, where the collector of customs is now presumed to take over the offices of both Customs and Inland Revenue. His work is fairly heavy and responsible now. If the collector of customs cannot be given an increase at all, I should like to know whether some representation could not be made to the Civil Service Commission with a view to securing fair play in this matter. What is the revenue at Stratford from customs and inland revenue, and what is the salary paid the officer now conducting both services?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I quite agree that on
amalgamation, particularly of the larger offices, where greater responsibilities are placed on the collectors, and where in some cases it is almost impossible for them to get through with their work, some consideration should be given. It is my intention on the reorganization of the department to make certain recommendations to the Civil Service Commission, who have this matter in hand, so that in those cases where there has really been an extra amount of work placed on these men, the work should be graded differently and some consideration should be accorded them. I assure the hon. gentleman that I will take this matter up with the Civil Service Commission and make a recommendation along those lines. The Customs revenue at this particular port is $185,000.	[DOT]


Hugh Boulton Morphy: And the salary is what?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: The salary of the collector is $2,160.


Mr. ROSS:: I would like to ask the minister a question with regard to the outport
of Strathroy. I notice on page D-43 of the Auditor General's Report the following:
Strathroy:	W. H. Murray, sub-collector,
$1,300 bonus, $396 ; H. W. Paddell, clerk, $1,200, bonus, $396; Miss M. DeCourcy, preventive officer, $850, bonus, $420; G. E. MacKenzle, relieving: officer, 3 m. to Mar. 31, $274.98, bonus, $72.55 ; board, etc., W. J. Element, $32.40 ; postage and p.o. box, $22.25-
Do I understand from this item in the Auditor General's Report that all these officers are stationed at the town of Strathroy, and that they occupy offices, and draw salaries for work performed there?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: The headquarters of
that particular district and the chief port is London; Strathroy is just an outport.


James Hamilton Ross: I understand that quite well, but I would imagine that if that were the case the salaries of these people would be charged to the city of London. What have they to do with Strathroy?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Nothing at all.


James Hamilton Ross: Take Miss DeCourcy; what are her duties in the Strathroy office?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: There is only one
officer at Strathroy; all the rest are at London. This lady the hon. gentleman speaks of is at London.


James Hamilton Ross: Then this item in the Auditor General's Report should not be in the form in which it is, and the salaries of these officers should not be charged to the Strathroy office. Miss DeCourcy, H. W. Paddell and W. J. Element have never been in the Strathroy office.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: If the hon. member
will refer to page D-42 of the Auditor General's Report he will find that is all under the chief port of London, the total for salaries being $43,722. The different offices are enumerated, and Strathroy is only an outport.


James Hamilton Ross: I understand that quite well. But why should these salaries be charged to the Strathroy office? These people have never entered the Strathroy office in their lives.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: They are not.


James Hamilton Ross: But at page D-43 all these
offices are under the heading of "Strathroy" and their salaries are charged to that office. Mr. Murray is the only officer there.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: There is something
wrong. They should be under the London office; there is no question about that. There is only one officer at Strathroy.
REVISED EDITIpN.


James Hamilton Ross: That is what I was pointing out. From the way the information appears in the Auditor General's Report any person reading it would believe all these persons are stationed at Strathroy.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: It is a mistake; they
are all stationed at London with the exception of one officer at Strathroy. I think his name is Murray.


William Foster Cockshutt: I was going to make further inquiry when the member for Perth (Mr. Morphy) intervened with regard to the amount of collections at the port of Stratford. I was going to ask if it is the intention of the minister to recognize the increased responsibilities and work that will devolve upon the collector at the port of Brantford by reason of the amalgamation. My recollection is that the collections in the Customs will amount to a million of dollars almost, and probably $200,000, or perhaps more, in the Inland Revenue. The offices having been amalgamated and it appears to me that the Customs officer, who has now been in the employ of the department several years, would be entitled to further consideration by reason of the vast amount of work that will be put upon him, and the increased responsibilities that the double office will create in the city of Brantford. If the minister has these facts I would like to hear them.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: The revenue from
Brantford last year in customs was $900,000, and in inland revenue $175,000. The same statement that I made to the hon. member for Perth, applies in like manner to Brantford or any other place. I believe that these men who have had extra duties placed upon them should receive extra consideration, and my recommendation to the Civil Service Commission will be along that line.


Mr. McKENZIE:: May I ask the number of Customs and Inland Revenue officers in the riding of North Cape Breton and Victoria, and the different places at which they are stationed?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: It will take some little time to look that information up. Will the hon. gentleman tell me to what ports he refers? I have not got them in alphabetical order here, but only by counties.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think there is a custom house at Cape North, in the northern end of the county. I think there are also customs houses at Neil's Harbour,
[Mr .Wig-more.]
North Ingonish, South Ingonish, English-town, Baddeck, Little Narrows, Iona, Grand Narrows, North Sydney, and Sydney Mines.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: There are fourteen
officers at Baddeck and at out ports. There are fifteen at Northm Sydney and out ports. I will be very glad to read the names of the officers at Baddeck. They are as follows:
D. J. Macrae, Collector of Customs, at Bad-deck ; J. A. Bain, Customs Patrol Officer, New Campbellton ; J. J, Bain, Customs Patrol Officer, New Campbellton; Captain A. Carmichael, Customs Patrol Officer, Munroe's Point; Edward Dowling, Customs Patrol Officer, Neil's Harbour ; John Larusic, Customs Patrol Officer, Aspy Bay ; W. R. McKinnon, Sub-collector of Customs, New Campbellton; Donald McAulay, Customs Patrol Officer, St. Ann's; P. A. Macintosh, Customs Patrol Officer, White Point; D. B. McKay, Customs Patrol Officer, Little Narrow's; Alex. McLeod, Customs Patrol Officer, Engllshtown; Edward Maeneil, Sub-collector of Customs, Iona-
There are a couple of temporary officers :
-T. D. Curtis, Customs Patrol Officer, Ingonish ; Duncan Carey, Customs Patrol Officer, New Campbellton.
The names of the officers at North Sydney are:
Jos. McPherson, Collector; J. H. Cameron, John Cogan, John J. McDonald, David Edwards, P. E. Jackson. H. W. McNeil, Angus Toung, John Boutillier, D. J. McGillivray, Chas. J. K. Jessome, Roderick McDonald, Robert Newton, James Peck, and E. A. McNeil.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is any provision made for increases to these men from year to year? Some of them are rather old officials and get small pay.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: No provision is made for increases to these patrol officers. Statutory increases are granted to collectors of customs, and are fixed by the department and the Civil Service Commission.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Were any increases made in the last two or three years?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Not for those small
offices.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Can the hon. gentleman give the number of port officers for Montreal this year as compared with 1917, 1918, 1919, and 1920?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I have not the information here, but last year there were 398 officers in the port of Montreal, and the out-ports connected with it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And this year?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I can give the hon. gentleman that information later on.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What were the total salaries paid to those officers? And have any increases been granted?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: The total salaries for 1920 were $511,600. The proposed statutory increases will amount to $17,135.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will those officers get the bonus?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the customs revenue from the port of Montreal?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: The customs revenue
was as follows: 1915-16, $23,116,305; 191617, $34,890,790; 1917-18, $36,459,793; 1919, $36,662,151; 1919-20, $47,921,847.78.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are the Inland Revenue receipts from the city of Montreal?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I have not any statistics.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many Inland
Revenue officers are employed in the Montreal district?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: About one hundred and four or one hundred and five.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many seizures
were made by those officers last year?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: The seizures made
were as follows: 1917-18, 7; 1918-19, 28; 1919-20, 29; 1920-21, 59.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend received representations from the Board of Trade and from .the Chamber of Commerce of the district of Montreal as regards the duties levied in view of the premium on the American dollar?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I do not remember any such representations. I should judge they would get to the Minister of Finance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. But has any decision been made as regards discrepancy in the duties affected by the premium on the American dollar?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: No, there is no difference between the standard dollar of Canada and the standard dollar of the United States.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But as a matter of fact there is with the appreciation of the American dollar, and the depreciation of the Canadian dollar. Is not the department by not adjusting this matter giving
the Americans a real preference in shipping their goods here?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Of course, under the present law we cannot make any change. I do not know what may be done in the future.	'


Rodolphe Lemieux: But my .hon. friend can see at once that it works in favour of the American and against the British exporter to Canada. It seems to me that the provisions of the Customs Act with respect to standard currency should be amended in order to give our friends in Great Britain and importers in Canada a chance to compete with the Americans.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: The Act says:
In computing the value for duty of such currency the rate thereof shall he such as has been ordered and proclaimed from time to time by the Governor in Council who is hereby empowered to make such order.
The rate so ordered shall be based upon the actual value of the standard coins or currency of such country as compared with the standard dollar of Canada in so far as such comparative values are known.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In view of the depreciation of the Canadian dollar on the American market, does my hon. friend not think that an amendment might be introduced to effect an adjustment of things? I am afraid that we shall have to suffer from this depreciation for quite a number of years and the Americans will get the best of us. Canadians will lose the benefit of the British preference because on your Canadian dollar you lose 13 or 14 cents; it has even gone as low as 17.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Of course, this is a question of policy and is a matter for the Finance Minister. I may tell my hon. friend, however, that it has been under consideration for some time.


Mr. PEDLOW:: I would like to ask the minister how he arrives at the total of this vote, $6,782,195, showing an increase of $129,086.75. I find there is an actual decrease of $454,100 from last year's Estimates. Why does this discrepancy exist?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Last year we had two votes, one for the Customs and one for the Excise; this year we are amalgamating the two departments, so there must be some consideration that the hon. member has not taken into account.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am simply taking the figures as they appear in this Estimate, page 66. I find it difficult to reconcile the amounts as given on this page. Apparently there should be a large decrease in the

amount asked for, whereas there is actually shown an increase.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Six o'clock.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I would like to get this item through if possible.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, I think the minister should be satisfied. I would like him in the meantime to consider the last question that I brought up and to be ready to make a statement when we return to his Estimates.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: That is a question for the Minister of Finance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is administering the Customs Act. At any rate, the matter should be considered either by him or the Finance Minister.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 137, to amend and consolidate the Acts respecting Quebec Steamship Company.-Mr. Casgrain.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Green, Bill No. 108 (from the Senate) respecting the Dominion Express Company, was considered in committee, reported without amendment, read the third time and passed.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.
Monday, May 9, 1921.